the matter of any VVorship is then onely lawful and acceptable when it falls under a command that gives it the form and makes it true VVorship He equivocates with us in uncommanded oblations which may be either not at all commanded by God in their kindes and for such he will not plead for that is to introduce new worship or if commanded in the kinde yet not in the particular degree or circumstances and that will do him no good for that is not will-worship devised by men such as that will-worship he pleads for must be but as it is worship for kinde commanded so it may pro hic nunc as they speak be necessary which his will-worship cannot be Two things I shall adde to this number 1. That he calls his will-worship Oblations which were in the old Law parts of VVorship or proper VVorship which he will anon deny of his 2. That if spontaneousness of oblations alone will make them lawful and acceptable to God the Papists are as spontaneous and voluntary in their vowed Caelibate Poverty such and such Habits Fastings c. as the Doctor can be in his will-worship and so he must either justifie them upon that point or condemn himself with them And now I shall come to consider his arguments the first whereof is he sayes p. 176. n. 10 ad hominem Reminding me of my three Texts out of the old Testament the second Commandment Deut. 4.2 and the fourth Commandment 1. They were thus of force against all uncommanded services in the old Testament 2. by Analogie they still hold under the New which if they do then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribists pretensions c. His argument is thus summ'd up Whatsoever was lawful under the Old Testament p. 177. n. 12 is lawful under the New But Free-will or uncommanded offerings were lawful under the Old Testament ergo First his Major is none of mine and clearly false none of mine for I argued with learned Divines clean contrary The worship of God then was far different from the worship of the Gospel And as he sets it it is clearly false and he can never prove it That whatsoever worship for of that we speak was lawful then is lawful now Give me leave to make an assumption to it from himself n. 7. The kinde of that worship was Levitical and long since abolished by Christ yet was lawful then Secondly the former distinction of uncommanded worship will avoid his whole argument uncommanded for kinde or uncommanded for degree or circumstances In the first sense as I meant it the Texts by me alledged do directly militate in the Old and New Testament But then the Minor is false uncommanded offerings for kinde were not lawful under the old Testament if uncommanded be taken in the second sense uncommanded for degrees or frequency c. which are but circumstances of Worship commanded they were lawful then But this will not serve his turn who pleads for uncommanded will-devised Worship both for kindes and circumstances such are his Will-worships of Virginity c. not at all commanded by God but left indifferent as he confesses Now the argument may in my sense be retorted What ever worship was unlawful in the Old Testament is unlawful in the New But uncommanded offerings for kinde were unlawful then ergo so now Let him try his strength to answer this But there is one foul mistake n. 10. whether willingly or no I will not say In touching upon my argument from the fourth Commandment in the particular of Festivals he charges me to say It is an offence in the excess to observe any other Holy-day but that one of the weekly Sabbath My words are otherwise To make and observe other days as Holy as the weekly Sabbath as parts of Worship is an offence and excess against the fourth Commandment The same distinction as afore will cut the sinews of his next argument n. 13. taken from the liberty and advantages which result to Christians from the abolition of the Mosaical Law which consists in taking off not in imposing weights and interdicts whereas by this Diatribist affirmation a multitude of burthens come in when I shall do any thing in the service of God not particularly commanded I am presently ensnared c. First For the burthen it is still the same in matter of new kindes of uncommanded worship not when I shall do any thing in commanded Worship as he too generally speaks but when I shall adde any Worship not commanded then I am ensnared Secondly let it be observed what the Doctor says here That the liberty brought in by Christ must consist in taking off not in imposing weights and interdicts But hereafter we shall finde him asserting that Christ by perfecting the Moral Law and adding to it hath rather increased the burthen to Christians as we shall see in due place p. 218. n. 49. To the third argument little need be said more Free-will offerings were then lawful p. 177. n. 14 but not Will-worship or Worship not commanded And if Free-will-offerings then were not Will-worship neither is his Will-worship a Free-will-offering now they then are not parallel as was said and so no arguing from one to another As for the fourth argument n. 15. I did but say that it seemed to me as to others that the formality of a Free-will-offering consisted in the freedome to offer or not to offer c. which is true in this sense that the particular quantity and frequency of offering was left free and not commanded but not that the kinde of offering was left free But he talking of uncommanded Worship would have his Reader think that there was a liberty then to offer or not to offer uncommanded Worship which was a new kinde of Worship so to build the lawfulness of his Will worship uncommanded Worship upon that foundation The fifth argument is answered as the former 〈…〉 those Free-will offerings that were in all those periods lawful were no for kindes uncommanded worship which that the Doctor doth intend appears first by paralleling his Will-worship with those Free-will offerings which were parts of Worship and secondly by his instance of Abels oblation which certainly was real Worship and yet the Doctor would believe with some and but some Fathers not to have been by way of precept from God but left to Free-will c. to offer or not to offer this certainly was not a circumstance but a new kinde of Worship never heard of before and so unparallel either to the Free-will-offerings of old or his Will-worship now Bellarm. himself grants the Altars and so the Sacrifices of Abraham c. to be by inspiration and impulsion Divine De â—…ff Sacr. l. 2. c. 31. And however the Doctor inclines rather to those few that say it was not under precept yet most of our best Divines do think and say it was under some precept to Adam or Abel without which
he means it thus n. 15. They made no Laws for the observing of Festivals but refers the original of them to custome but the Doctor speaks onely of Apostolical practice so he sayes But first Socrates says nothing of the Apostolical practice but refers it wholly to the custome of several places and people It seemes to me sayes he as many other things were introduced by a custome in divers places so the Feast of Easter by custome in several people had a peculiar different observation Why because none of the Apostles had made any Law concerning it But sure if the Apostles did change it from a Jewish to a Christian Festival and did themselves observe it as exemplary to the Churches they did thereby at first give as good as a Law and make an institution for them to observe And I am perswaded that upon this ground of Apostolical tradition and observation came in all the Superstition in after ages in making them Holy times and parts of Divine Worship c. and they established them as a Law as Socrates said believing them to be Apostolical 2. The truth seemes to me to lie here The Apostles did often frequent the Assemblies of the Jews in the Temple upon their solemnest Festivals as a greater opportunity of fishing in a wide Sea a multitude of people as at Pentecost Acts 2. and again Acts 20 16 Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost for the same reason which custome of the Festivals continuing till the destruction of Jerusalem the Apostles did condiscend to be at them while they lived amongst them Whereupon the following Church seeing this example of their practice took it as a Rule to observe the Feasts especially the Jewish Christians in Asia being tenacious of their old customes and so kep◠the very same day the Jews did which other Churches after the Jews were grown obstinate finding such a custome of the Feast in hatred of the Jews changed into the Lords day as Augustine observes Epist 119 Can. Nicen. de Fest Pasch by Constantines perswasion But see the tenaciousness of men for Traditions of their Fathers The Doctor cares not what he can to weaken or question the Authority of the Lords day to strengthen and stablish his Easter Feast p. 245. n. 17 It will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any other evidence for the weekly Christian Sabbath or Lords day then the custome and practice Apostolical the New Testament hath no where any giving of Law conerning it But sure it will be easie for the Diatribist to manifest a palpable difference between the Lords day and his Easter out of Scriture the best Record beside what is said out of prime Antiquity For 1. We finde the Name there as a day of Christian Assemblies but not a word of Easter 2. We finde the Apostles practice and observation of it but never of Easter 3. We finde grounds in Scripture for the institution or designation of the day but nothing for Easter but rather the contrary prohibition The grounds of the weekly Christian Sabbath it 's well he will allow the Lords-day so honourable a Title he cannot say so much for his Easter Feast and some of his way would have scornfully called it Your Saint Sabbath The grounds I say are these 1. For a solemn day of rest which is a Sabbath we have the fourth Commandment morall in the judgement of its greatest enemies 2. We have it granted that the day must not be less then one in seven yea one day in seven is granted moral in the fourth Commandment by the Doctor * p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week c. himself 3. Christ in Matt. 5. came to stablish and not destroy this Law amongst the rest 4. We have Christian exercises performed on the day beside prayer and preaching and Lords Supper collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day which presupposes the day * That which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so in his 4. Quaer s 94. before designed by Christ or his Apostles All this together amounts to a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or institution And lastly the uniform observation of this day in all ages in all Churches must needs presuppose it to be a Divine Ordination Not one of all these can he truly prove applyable to his Easter Feast Away then with such unworthy comparisons But we shall meet it again ere long And yet Isaid p. 245. n. 19. and say again The observation of Easter hath better Antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical He answers The Apostolical practice being so evident there can be no doubt then the Analogy holding the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian Festival to another will certainly justifie the observation c. The question is not now of the observation of either but the Antiquity so that this was a meer evasion There are histories and traditions and ancients that speak of Easter in the second Centurie but not one word of Christmas and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it which to me is a good evidence there is none And as for Analogy from one Festival to another it holds as well thus If there can be produced neither Apostolical institution nor observation of Easter as a Christian Festival as is probably evinced above then much less is there any ground for the institution or observation of Christmas as an Holy-day But this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main business When I granted the Antiquity of some Festivals in the third or fourth Century might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman Antichristain See adhering to them The Doctor is overjoy'd n. 1. p. 247. and congratulates the unexpected success of his paper But without any cause for it wrought nothing with me being of that opinion before that Rome was not at that time Antichristian But to discover my meaning and to cool his boasting I believe the first Institutors of Festivals had a good Intention to commemorate the mercies of God bestowed on us in Christ making them onely circumstances of Worship though some Superstitions did soon after creep into the observation of them But after ages declining more and more till Antichrist got into the throne those Festivals I meant comparatively had at first nothing of that corruption which after adhered to and overwhelmed them both in their Institution and also in their observation Neither did I mean that the Festivals as they were lately observed by some in England had nothing of the Roman See as now it is corrupted having charged the observation of them by the Dr. and
32. and just now that they were interdicted Christians p. 84. n. 5. n. 8. he would not and to the last first in asking the question I beg the question which is sayes he whether every devised Rite or Ceremony not commanded of God be superstitious No such matter the question is of Vncommanded Worship not of Circumstances of Worship no nor of Rites and Ceremonies if not made parts of Worship And is it probable that the Apostle would cry down the old Ceremonies appointed by God and parts of Worship and give them leave to set up new ones of their own Head To the former part of a Jewes observing a Jewish Ceremony c. he answers as confidently by a question n. 8. What thinks be of the abstinence from strangled and blood a Jewish Ceremony and observed by Christians yet not blamed as Superstitious I say this first as it was observed by Christians so it was ordered by the Apostles who might do more then any Jew or Christian 2. It was not made now a part of Worship as before it was but onely to prevent a scandal to the weaker Jews which is evident by this besides other reasons that after the Jewes were better instructed or hardened the custome ceased And if the Doctor had a mind to plead for a Ceremony he might better have pleaded for continuance of this both for the Antiquity of it before the Law under the Law and under the first plantation of the Gospel observed by Christians many ages says the Doctor and also for the Authority of it from the Apostles themselves He cannot produce so much for his beloved Festival His other instance of the old Sabbath is just the same He hath the practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who continued the observation of it with the Lords day for some hundreds of years But I would say further 1. The Apostles did not observe the Sabbath day as now a part of Worship as afore but to take occasion to preach the Gospel at their Assemblies which they could not have on other dayes 2. The following Churches finding it in being amongst the Jewes continued it a while to gratifie them 3. If they continued it as a part of worship I would ask the Doctor whether they did well or he would justifie them seeing it was before annul'd and interdicted as he sayes 4. I must profess there is much more to be said for the observation of the old Sabbath by the Jewish Sabbatarians than can be said for any of the Doctors Festivals the Antiquity of it the Authority of it the Apostolical practice sayes the Doctor and the Churches observation of it for many ages clearly manifested in stories Whereas the Festivals especially his darling Christmas have no Apostolical Authority or Practice nor of the two first Ages of the Church that can be made appear I leave these to his consideration The 32. Section of mine p. 86. n. 9. he overlooks most of it that most concern'd him to have answered about his number of wholsome Ceremonies of the efficacy put in them by some to procure grace c. and who shall be the Judge of their number and wholesomness All this is waved but a flaw or fault is found in my words which takes him wholly up that I affirm him to say If Ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholsom there cannot be too much of them Truly he that reades the words in his 41. Section might easily be mistaken if he attend not heedfully to them thus they are Ceremonies must be few and wholsom yet if they be wholsom not onely negatively but positively not onely harmless but tending to edification for so salubrity imports then there will be little reason to accuse them of excess Would not a man at first sight take the meaning to be that which I have given If they be wholesom negatively harmlesly though not onely so but positively and tending to edification c. especially if he eyed not the parenthesis following which all know may be left out and the sense be still entire But I shall freely acknowledge my Inadvertency and beg his pardon I am sure he needs mine much more in mislating of the question so often I say not willingly as if the controversie was only Whether every Rite or Circumstance not commanded by God be Superstition n. 7. when he knows it is about Uncommanded Worship Sect. 33. This question of a competent Judge c. THe Sophisme charged upon me n. 10. will rather reflect upon himself I said what is Superstition but folly and vanity in the Worship of God In vain do they Worship me c. This is says he a parologisme supposing things to be convertible which are not every Superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the Worship of God is not Superstition Duplex superstitio perniciosa vana seu superflua Filuc Trat 24. c. 2. Foolish and vain Ceremonies or superstitious But that 's the Doctors mistake I dare maintain that every folly and vainty in the Worship of God is Superstition which I prove from the definition of Superstition Every excess in Religion of mens devising is folly as proceeding from mans Wisdom which is folly with God and vanity as wanting ground of it's performance but every folly and vanity in Religion of mens devising is an excess in Religion ergo And from his own words In this case of too many Ceremonies though any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault yet this not the fault of Superstition but of folly and vanity He was speaking of store of inordinable unfit Ceremonies in the Church of Rome are not they Superstitious yet are they also foolish and vain And when he sayes any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault how will he reconcile this with what he had said before If the excess be in taking too many Rites and Ceremonies into the Worship of God then he hastily assumes this by this it is granted Any one Ceremony if made a part of Worship as the word signifies is a Nimiety and excess in Religion and superstitious not the multitude only as was said above the Rites and Ceremonies themselves are not Superstitious but the multitude onely But now he sayes Any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault Now that cannot be if onely the multitude of Ceremonies makes them superstitious suppose ten Ceremonies all singly indifferent and lawful which of the ten is a Nimiety and a fault they are supposed all equally good or if the number onely make them Superstitious how can so many goods added together make them bad either therefore there must be some Rule in Scripture how many Ceremonies may be instituted and yet not be superstitious unless they exceed that number or else the Adding of one any one Ceremony to the Rule is a Nimiety and faulty in Superstition Let the Doctor resolve us in this case Section
understands that my main designe in undertaking this work was primarily to manifest the Superstition and Will-worship in the ordinary observation of the chief Festivals and the rest and secondarily to justifie the abolition of them against which the Doctor hath so much declamed For which end I took in as I said at first his other two Tracts of Superstition and Will worship to make a clear discovery of that which I saw the Doctor had clouded what those two Crimes were which beside the Riot were charged upon his Festival that so the Application of them to the Festival in particular might be the more easie and obvious to every intelligent Reader For if Superstition and Will-worship be as I have proved them to be from the Testimonies of Orthodox Divines and of the Doctor himself and they criminous And then the Observers of the Festivals be proved guilty of those two crimes and the Doctor as deep as any which onely remain to be made good I shall venture to make all indifferent but judicious Readers yea and the Doctor himself in his sedate and impartial judgement both witnesses and judges of my conclusion If the Doctor himself shall lend me both my premises even sometimes totidem verbis I hope he will not be so uncivil or unnatural as not to own the conclusion as a childe of his own begetting though it hath been several times brought home and laid at his door but he hath gone in and out and took no notice of it I shall once more lay it before him But first some other business takes us up to be briefly dispatched rather by way of strictures then a set and continued discourse That the custome of a Church in things indifferent is somewhat considerable I denied not p. 231. n. 3. But when humane customes are degenerated into superstition and made Will-worship that custome though never so ancient is not to be pleaded He may see that my scope was onely this to beat down degenerated customes pretended onely to be ancient and Apostolical and withal to retort the argument intended by him more sutably to the text alluded to The Apostles and prime Church had no such custome as his Festival therefore they are contentious who plead for the continuancy of a custome so degenerated Whence the Doctors testimonies are indeed ex abundanti needless and superfluous except to shew his reading That Christians should comply with the customes of the places whither they come That is n. 4. c. while they are in things indifferent and neither burthenous by their number nor vitiated by the former abuses But he knows that Augustine in his time which was early to us complain'd of the yoke of Ceremonies introduced and wisht them abolished and so much for that Section How those Heathen usages p. 233. n. 3. that stuck so long to the Festival came in or when it is not * See n. 8. worth the while to debate it would be a better service for the Advocates of the Festival to study how to get them out which I fear they have not much troubled themselves withal Sure we are many customes came in in compliance as with the Jews on one side so with Heathens on the other I know he remembers well enough who said Ita bellè Ethnicos in hac re Polydor. Virg. de Invent. Rer. l. 6. c. 8. p. 234. n. 7. ut in nimis multis aliis aemulamur Though neither I nor he can exactly tell when that compliance first began Suppose that which the Doctor sayes be true At the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian and so some others from the heathen also 't is possible and imaginable But it s as true which he addes they were not taught them by Christianity Christian Religion taught them no such things nor intended their continuance but yet they were continued a long time Hence his argument for Infant Baptisme of that I think he means it also from the custome of the Jewes to Baptize is not constringent to a gain-sayer I believe he findes it so in his conflict with Master Tombs for how easie were it to answer as I remember he does it was the custome of the Jewes to Circumcise after Christianty began to keep the old Sabbath what 's that to Christians And if my judgement were of any worth with the Doctor I should make bold to tell him my conjecture in this case It s very probable that at the first beginning of Christianity such things or customes as the Sabbath the Paschal and Pentecost Festivals might adhere to the Christian though not taught it by Christianâ—y that they should be continued as Christian Holy-days and so some Heathenish customes in like manner from the first plantation of the Faith But then I would infer 1. That the Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost called after Easter and Whitsuntide were no Apostolical constitutions but rather charitable condescensions of the Apostles and after Planters to win the Jews to the Christian Religion But not as taught them by Christianity nor to continue any more then the old Sabbath or Circumcision c. Which by degrees vanished Else I would ask why was not the old Sabbath perpetuated in the Church Christian aswel as Easter and Whitsuntide there being more to be said for it in the Apostolical practice and other wayes then is or can be produced for those Fostivals as I have elsewhere said 2. I would also infer that Festivals were continued or exchanged for some Heathenish ones as Christmas for the Saturnalia to win them the better to the faith not to be continued longer then the Faith was well fettled But such is the mischief of humane policies in Religion that ill usages once brought in can seldom or hardly be gotten out again 3. The Doctors argument is as little constringent as mine that those usages must needs be brought in at the first conversion of a nation which might come in by degrees The time and Authour of our conversion p. 235. n. 1. is as uncertain as the former and confessed by the Doctor to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business of Festivals And therefore I shall no longer draw the Sawe of controversie therein but leave the Doctor to his own conjectures for they are no better and proceed to something of more concernment And that is about the institution and observation of Easter by which standard all other Festivals are to be rated as the Doctor says p. 243. n. 10. which if we may believe him was instituted or at least observed by the Apostles themselves The trial whereof is referred p. 241. n. 2. not to Scripture which an Apostolical institution which is acknowledged elsewhere to be Divine might justly expect but to Tradition out of most uncertain Histories unfit to build our faith upon Eusebius who lived in the fourth Centurie a great distance from the
of most high concernment is in the Church we must grant that she hath power enough to institute what Ceremonies she shall think usefull in the service of God But he is yet more liberal 2. The fourth Commandment being given to the Jews for one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes c. But his Colleagues say that proportion of time in the fourth Commandment was Ceremoniall and so void and one day in eight or ten might be sufficient if the Church so pleased And what is this equitableness the Doctor speaks of not just and necessary it may not be less yea must be so much at least but fit and convenient to be designed by the Church nay by every Christian for so he says For if he should yeild it necessary by this Commandment to set apart one day in seven he grants the fourth Commandment to be moral for so much time which ere long he will as others do deny There would then remain nothing to be done but to finde out that particular day of seven to be assigned for God and his service and who hath power to do it For that he is yet more liberal then some of his partners The first day of the week and accordingly he supposes it instituted by the Apostles of Christ Surely this is one of the Doctors Free-will-offerings and we if not God are much beholden to him if he would not retract this gift which he will do anon founding the Lords-day and his Festivals on the same Authority of the Church But I take what he grants kindly If the first day of the week was by Apostolical that is Divine Institution as one of seven I ask by what Rule or Commandment did they make that day necessary and moral if not by the fourth Commandment and then it 's moral not onely for some time but for one day in seven which will hardly be yeilded And again if the Lords-day be of Apostolicall divine institution according to the fourth Commandment it is Holy above not onely all other days in the week but above all his Festivals for which he hath nothing in the fourth Commandment nor can prove them of Apostolicall Institution the most he pretends to is but Apostolical practice and observation And therefore fearing he hath yeilded too much he starts back and says As among the Jews n. 7. beside the weekly Sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many Festivities some appointed by God himself others instituted by men Yet constantly observed without prejudice to the fourth Commandment So nothing hinders but under the Gospel the Church may ordain Christian Feasts c. As for those Feasts appointed by men they have their place below where they shall be spoken to For those of Gods appointment we do not think the fourth Commandment exclusive to hinder God for appointing what dayes he pleases onely it presupposing the power of ordaining Holy-days to belong to God it excludes men for setting up any as holy without his leave It cannot therefore be inferred reasonably God had power to appoint what Holy-days he pleased to the Jewes ergo the Church under the Gospel may appoint as many as she will Besides those Festivals of the Jewes beside the weekly Sabbath were typical and Ceremonial and a part of their yoke which being taken off by Christ it becomes not the Church to put the same and a greater upon the necks of Christians Adde to this that those Festivals were not properly reducible to the fourth Commandment requiring but one in seven whereas the Doctor will fetch them all in under his fundamental morality of some times to be assigned for Gods service by the fourth Commandment that is such as the Church shall appoint and yet pleads the fifth Commandment to justifie obedience to them not as an act of Will-worship but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fifth Commandment Which sure needed not if the fourth Commandment be morall for assigning some times for Gods service by the Church for that Commandment will both command and justifie their obedience That we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day in seven to be holy so for our allowance of six days for our own works p. 263. n. 8. he says 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it where did he reduce us to the fourth Commandment Did not the Dr. say even now n. 6. That it 's equitable by that Commandment that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for more then one in seven let him look for authority one in seven shall serve our turn And I ask by what Rule or Authority does the Doctor presume to take the allowance of the six dayes for his own occasions if not by the fourth Commandment and will he not by the same Commandment allow God one of seven But where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment I answer in Matth. 5. where he professes he came not to destroy but to fulfil and stablish the Moral Law whereof the fourth for one in seven is one But then says he 'T is visible what the consequence must be even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of that Commandment Hath not the Dr. As he did the second Commandment above ad p. 44. n. 8 The Dr. leaps from p. 152. of mine to p. 157. now destroyed one Commandment more out of the Decalogue which Christ came to establish or is not this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Dr. that the subject of the fourth Commandment was that seventh day Sabbath for if so it is as fully void as the commandment for the Paschal Sabbath or else the Doctor must turn either Jew and observe that day or Anabaptist and Quaker c. and make no Sabbath but every day a Sabbath I leave it to his choice The rest that follows in this Section is impertinent to the main business Some thing he says about the mistake of the day and venial sins not fit to be passed by For venial sins n. 11 12. he hath this passage He that talks of venial sins must be presumed not to exclude the blood of Christ c. I spake of venial sins in the notion of Papists but sure they do not include the blood of Christ when they talk of venial sins but rather exclude it saying That men need not ask God forgiveness for them but themselves may satisfie for them by an Ave Maria a Pater noster or a knock on the breast c. And the Doctors language is too like theirs The excuse of blameless ignorance will wash away greater errors then this if an error As holy water washes away venial sins with them As for the mistake of the