then as it is most incredible that those Churches that censured these corruptions should be infected with them so nothing can be more unjust as well as uncharitable and impious then to affix that character on the Churches which belonged only to the hereticks that disturbed and were ejected out of those Churches By this account the Apostolical Churches themselves whilest the Apostles presided in them might be blasted also for we know there was in their very time a mystery of iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceivers and Impostors Antichrists and false teachers good store but as S. Iohn saith of these that they went out from us separated from the Churches and so discovered that they were not of them So it was also after the Apostles death the hereticks and schismaticks infused not their corruptions into the Church and so they cannot with truth be imputed to those that were preserved pure from them the corruptions of the enemies of the Church unto the Churches And however the Doctor have been accused sometimes of complying with the Papists I am confident he never let any thing fall which yielded them so true and solid advantage as this one affirmation of the Diatribist that the corruptions of which the Romish religion is a bundle are those which crept into the Churches not long after the Apostles days For what is that but an agnition that the most accused Romish practices now adays are the same which were delivered to them from the Primitive Church For my part I protest my dissent and so sure doth the whole Church of England and every true son thereof to this conclusion Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feast may not be abolisht among us The Diatribists mistake of the question MY 2d inference now followes that any such ancient usage of this particular Church if it had no other ground to stand on as its foundation or concurrence of all Christian Churches as pillars to sustain it were a very competent authority for the present continuance of such a practice in the Church and that upon this score because the Anglicane Church being one of those which by its foundation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to no forein Patriarch is consequently invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for it self which consequently may not without great temerity be changed or abolished by any To this because I see there are some pages of objections inserted by the Diatribist before I read them over I desire it may be adverted wherein the force of my inference consists viz. in these 3 things 1. that this particular Church of ours being first planted by some either Apostle or Apostolical person was thereby constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of absolute power within it self as that excludes subjection to any other forain power 2dly That in all probability this feast was set up or celebrated here by those that first planted the faith among us i. e. by some Apostle or Apostolical person by Simon Zelotes or by those 12 which were sent higher by Philip the Apostle and Ioseph of Arimathea one of those 3 That what was by so good authority introduced having no equal reason to supersede it such as was the contrary tradition of other Apostles in the businesse of Easter may not without temerity now be abolished by any not by any other person or persons Pope or Consistory because no other hath power over a Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by the Apostles and not subjected by them to any not by the Church it self which cannot now be supposed to have any such persons in it as may be fit to compare with the first founders of it at least not without some greater reason for the changing and abolishing then they may appear to have had for the using of it Upon these grounds my inference being built as is there apparent by the premisses and the very expressions cautiously used in setting it down let us now see what the Diatribist hath to object And 1. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by its foundation he willingly grants subordinate to no forain Patriarch I shall only demand whether it be subordinate to its own sons or to any but the legal Fathers of it I hope it will be as reasonable for me to presume it is not as it was for the Diatribist to grant the former for else M. C. a son of this Church by devesting the Pope of his authority shall only have removed and vested it in himself and such as he translated it from the Papacy to the Presbyterie which I hope he will not professe to do lest that be the very crime which was charged on our Bishops that they assumed to themselves the Papal power or the power of ordaining ceremonies which sure is no greater then that of abolishing them Having made this grant of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this Church it is observable what he presently interposeth Yet saith he we justly question whether it be invested with such unquestionable power to institute what ceremonies it please which may not upon good reasons be changed and abolished In which very form of proposing his question or exception t is visible what change he hath thought fit to make in my inference when I spake of the power of this Church to institute ceremonies for it self I never affirmed of those ceremonies once instituted that they might not upon good reasons be changed and abolished for I doubt not but the same power which may on good reasons institute may on good reasons abolish also But first I desired to examine the present reasons of abolition of this Festival whether they were as important as those whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted viz. that of the pious and thankful commemorating the birth of Christ and withall 2. whether those reasons pretended for abolition were not faigned reasons as those taken from the heads of Will-worship and Superstition have I must hope been evidenced to be or again 3. whether they might not otherwise be satisfied as that of the riot charged only as a consequence accidental to the Feast by care and exercise of discipline To which considerations may 4thly be farther added this reasonable aphorisme of Christian policy that what was thus brought in on such grounds by the governors of a Church supposing them but such as are of an ordinary rank of governors and not the Apostolical founders of the Church to whom certainly more respect is due may not be cast out by sons of the Church or indeed by any other then the authority of the succeeding Governors And these few considerations I suppose may competently evidence the unreasonablenesse of this changing the tearms of the question if not of his plea for the abolition of the Festival And therefore whereas upon this occasion he enters into a large discourse concerning the power of the Church to institute ceremonies I shall take leave to passe it over untoucht it being certain that
to whom they are given i. e. saith the Scholiast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on us Christians and danger to them who observe them not Others impose no necessity but are left to choice bring honor and reward to the observers but no kinde of danger to them that perform them not adding that as he that doth not deserve punishment doth not presently deserve praise so neither doth he that doth not deserve praise presently incur punishment So among the Latins Tertullian speaking both of continence and of abstinence in his book de cultu Foemin long before he was under any suspicion of Montanism c. 9. Multi propter regnum Dei fortem utique permissam voluptatem sponte ponentes Many there were which for the Kingdom of God voluntarily and of their own accord parted with that great and lawful pleasure of women And again Quidam ipsam Dei creaturam sibi interdicunt abstinentes vino animalibus exulantes quorum fructus nulli periculo aut solicitudini adjacent sed humiliatem animae suae in victus quoque castigatione Deo immolant Some interdict themselves the creature of God abstein from wine and living creatures the using of which is perfectly free and safe and so by chastising of the body sacrifices to God the humility of the soul So S. Hierome ad Demetriad speaking of Christs words of selling and giving to the poor Non cogo saith he in Christs name non impero sed propono palmam praemia ostendo Tuum est eligere si volueris in agone certamine coronari Christ doth not command it or compel to do it but proposeth rewards and thou if thou wilt be crowned must make the choice And ad Pammachium Non tibi imponitur necessitas ut voluntas praemium consequatur No necessity is imposed on thee that thy will may obtain reward And advers Helvidium Of Virginity Virgo majoris est meriti dum id contemnit quod si fecerit non delinquit A Virgin is of greater worth while she contemns that which if she do she offends not And advers Jovinian Ideo plus amat Virgines Christus quia sponte faciunt quod sibi non fuerat imperatum Therefore Christ loves them more because they of their own accord do that which was not commanded them So Chrysostom formerly produced on Rom 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spiritual do what they do with appetite and desire and demonstrate it in that they also exceed commands So Cassian Chrysostoms scholar Coll. 22. c. 30. Perfecti sub gratiâ evangelii constituti voluntariâ legem devotione transcendunt c. They which are perfect now under the grace of the Gospel do transcend the law by voluntary devotion And c. 29 he speaks of worldly men qui nihil Deo voluntariè offerunt who have no free-will-offering for God And so Gregory Moral in Job Quidam praecepta legis perfectione virtutum transcendunt Some men transcend the precepts of the law by perfection of virtues To apply all this apparatus to the present matter the stating of the question in hand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship as terminated in the one God the object of worship cannot be imagined to denote any more then some one of these six things 1. the performing any sort of worship to God which is forbidden by him which yet is not truly but equivocally called worship as when the Pharisees persecuting the Apostles was by them styled the doing God service and the like 2. The using any ceremony in the worship of God which either is particularly forbidden by God or bears analogy with those which are certainly forbidden as among Christians sacrificing of beasts c. 3. Burthening the worship of God with many whether ridiculous or unprofitable ceremonies which though they are no where forbidden severally by God yet by their multitude become an hindrance to devotion or a yoke too heavy for Christians 4. Using or instituting one or more ceremonies no way forbidden and yet no where commanded by God but yet such as the institution or using any of them is founded in some pious or prudential consideration whether of decency as when any gesture of bodily reverence or humility is used or appointed or for edification as when feasts not prescribed by God are set apart by the Church and so by men for the commemoration of any eminent mercy of God for the proposing some exemplary virtues to others c. and withal that care is taken that they are no way offensive by the number of them 5. Offering to the service of God any thing of which God hath any way revealed that he will accept of and reward if it be duly performed though he do not by any law exact it from every man as dedicating himself to the ministery doing it without any hire or payment here vowing vows of building Hospitals Churches c and most eminently martyrdome when it may possibly and without sin be avoided by slight c. but yet the man thinks it may much tend to Gods honor in the good of souls if he thus seal and publickly testifie his obedience to Christs commands by his bloud and accordingly chooseth to do so Lastly when either for the degree or frequency of repetition of any known act of worship a man doth more then he is by Gods law strictly required to do prays oftner every day fasts oftner supposing he no way hurt himself or omit the performance of any other duty by such frequency in either of these gives a more liberal proportion out of his estate to pious and charitable uses then any precept of Christ obligeth him to do and the like As for that of a cheerful and so voluntary performance of any act of commanded worship I take not this in at all supposing that in the commands of God not only the action but the cheerfulnesse of the performance is in like manner commanded by God and so necessary not voluntary as that referres to the will of man distinguisht from the command of God Now for the two first of these it is by me most readily acknowledged that they are criminous and of these I plead not the cause in the least either here or in the tract of Will-worship nor do I apprehend that either of these are truly and properly capable of that title of will-worship or called by it in that one place of Scripture Col 2. Of the third sort also I acknowledge my dislike but yet again think it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apostle but rather to that by Epiphanius used of the Pharisee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exuberance or superfluity of Will-worship where still the fault is the multitude and unprofitablenesse of these ceremonies not simply the use of any one and so of each of them the superfluity and not the uncommandednesse of them Of the fourth sort though I must affirm that it hath nothing culpable in it but rather commendable as referrable to
the Apostle's command of decency c. yet because it is not worship it self but an extrinsecal attendant of it I need not allow that the title of Will-worship neither nor apply to it the Apostles usage of the word Col. 2. but refer it to those circumstances of worship for which or against which no command or prohibition of the word hath interposed of which I oft spake in the head of Superstition and vindicated it from that title Of the fifth is that I formerly spake and compared it with the voluntary oblations under the Law and of that there is all reason to interpret the word in the Apostle and that in a notion of good and commendable no way of vitious if it be truly such as it pretends to be and if it be not really such it may yet have an appearance of that and so farre an appearance of Piety or Wisdome And so again for the sixt or last I have affirmed of it and I hope made it clear that it is first lawful then commendable and rewardable by God above a lower degree or lesse frequent exercise of the same sort of worship and yet is not under particular precept as appears by this that at that time and in the same circumstances when it is thus laudable to give so much more the giving somewhat lesse is not a sin as is manifested in the tract of Wil-worship And so now I hope I have exactly obeyed the Diatribist's directions distinguisht the words and set the whole question before him as discernibly as he could wish and therein laid grounds for that just defence of a blamelesse word which was at large pleaded in the tract of Wil-worship And then I need adde no more to shew the impropriety and vanity of his own distinction or double sense of Will-worship 1. for spontaneous freenesse in worship commanded by God or 2. for worship devised by the wit and appointed by the will of man as contradistinguisht to the will and wisdom of God For as to the former branch of the distinction as it is restrained to worship commanded by God so it can be no Species of that Will-worship which respects the will and choice of man without any necessity particularly imposed by God and accordingly I have excluded it out of my Scheme not out of any unkindnesse to it but because it necessarily belongs to another head the cheerfulnesse and the worship being both supposed to be commanded by God and so uncapable of this distant title of Will-worship So that at the best imaginable he hath branched Will-worship into but one part and that was not the way of distinguishing that tearm Then for the other member it is so set that it hath many improprieties in it and in brief is that great fallacy to which Aristotle refers most others fallacia plurium interrogationum and I remember the Jews have a rule of their Vrim and Thummim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ask not of two things at once confounding and putting together things that are most disparate as hath already appeared by the several Species here set down which were to be distributed into their several classes some contradistinguisht indeed to the will and wisdom of God but none of those defended by me other only not particularly commanded by him or imposed sub periculo animae but very consonant and agreeable both to Gods will and wisdom and so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have very little to thank him for in his distinction As for his summe and scope of the second Commandment with the name of S. Augustine and the Doctor in the margent it already appears how little force it hath against my pretensions it being evident that the words there cited both for the affirmative and negative part of the Commandment belong to essential parts of Gods worship those only being prescribed and particularly appointed by God not to each circumstance thereof whether of time or place or gesture which among us t is certain are not particularly prescribed by God and yet we can so farre judge of his will by many indications of it that he no way reproves or dislikes our voluntary observing or the churches appointing of such and to these only he knows this controversie here belongs as applied to the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church Sect. 2. The method of of explicating difficulties in the new Test 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense and when in a bad no prejudice to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN his second § where he professeth not to care how oft or how seldom the Greek word is used in other Authors or the translators of the old Testament when the thing signified devised or imposed worship by the will of man â—… so decryed in Scripture I shall to his fastidious despising my method proposed returne my reason of reteining it and to his reason a brief demonstration of the vanity of it For the first the reason of my method in that as in other discourses was the great affinity and consent betwixt the Greek of the Old and New Testament the writers being of the same nation Jewes by birth which had acquired some skill in the Greek Language and yet not so much exactness therein as wholly to assume the dialect or character of speech observed by native or Learned Greeks or to devest themselves of the idiomes of their own language Upon this ground I suppose it most consequent that for the explaining all verbal difficulties in the New Testament resort should first be had to the Greek Translators of the Canonical Books or the writers of the Apocryphal of the old and then in the second place to other good Authors from whom any light can be fetcht and when these fail in their expected aids then to make use of other supplies analogie of phrases or matter with what we find in the Old Testament circumstances of the context and the like And if the Diatribist despise this method of search it were but necessary charity in him to discover the faults of it and direct us to a better which having not here done he leaves us to surmise that it was not his judgement but his care to serve his own hypothesis which infused these dislikes into him for otherwise the result of my way of search being onely this that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but once used in the whole Bible Col. 2. 23. the notion of it in that one place must in all reason be resolved to be that which properly belongs to that place especially if it proves to be such as agrees exactly with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or freewill offerings in the Old Testament I see not what infirmity it was which could render it up to his despising However this wholly removes and evacuates all force of his reason of dislike it being evident by that one example of freewill offerings but much more so by other evidences both there and here added that there may
the two branches of the one proposition for which I contend are no way concerned in any part of his state of this question nor indeed any thing with the least probability suggested against either viz. 1. that a National Church planted by the Apostles or their successors may lawfully use a festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ and on it pray to and praise God in the solemn assembly preach out the word and Sacraments exhorting all good Christians to partake thereof and to lay aside their ordinary labours that they may be vacant for such holy exercises and 2. that when such a pious usage hath gained a reception either from the time of the first planting of the faith among us or however by immemorial custome all other Churches in the world for very many hundred years and for ought we can discern from the very Apostles practice concurring with us it ought not to be declaimed against as Antichristian or laid aside or covenanted against by this Diatribist or others persons not in but under authority upon no weight of solid resons but upon some causless suggestions that it is criminous under the head of Will-worship and Superstition This was so plainly set down before to be the whole matter in debate betwixt me and any gain-sayers that there was nothing left to the Diatribist but briefly to point at the weak part if there appeared to be any such in either branch of this proposition and having nothing from him to this purpose I shall now omit to take notice of the infirmities of which this discourse of his is as full as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected and hasten to his following §§ in hope of springing somewhat more pertinent to our controversie Sect. 9. The Reformation in this Kingdome No imperfection in it in point of Festivals The states joyning in it no disadvantage to the Church MY 10th § proceeded to some few considerations the adverting to which might render this change or abolition of the Christmas Festival more unreasonable As 1. that this observation was an undoubted part of that establishment which the Reformation in this kingdome enacted for us and that by act of Parliament and not only by Church Canon To this he answers two things 1. That the Reformation was not so full as the Reformers themselves could have wisht Never considering how far this is from being applicable to the point in hand For I shall demand Did all or any of the Reformers to whose piety and temper we ow our establishment ever expresse their wish that all Festivals particularly this of Christmasse should be abolished or did they not If it shall be said they did I then presse that the Record may be produced by which this hath been notified to the Diatribist But if he confesse they did not or offer no proof that they did then what is it to this matter of festivities wherein only our present debate is concerned if in other things of a quite different nature as that of bringing all notorious sinners to penance every Lent mentioned in the office for Ashwednesday they wisht and exprest their wish that the Reformation were more perfect The rule in law is seasonable to be here applied Exceptio firmat in non exceptis Their expressing their wish that other things might be more perfect gives us assurance that they wisht not any farther change in this particular of festivals then that which they made in the Romish Calendar This answer therefore had little of advantage for him and yet his only Reserve is that 2. this seems to grant that the Reformation was made by the State and not by the Church which now is pleaded for And I pray what is that to the disadvantage of the Church that the State joined with it in the Reformation confirming and establishing it by Act of Parliament or 2. why is that the fitter to be abolished which stands by Statute law as well as by Ecclesiastical Canon and Custome immemorial or 3. how doth the Parliaments confirming the Liturgie and therein the festivals inferre that this festival was not first introduced by the Church when it is most evident that the Festival was in the Church long before that Act of Parliament These indeed are all the answers we can have to an argument which seemed to have been of some force with a friend of Parliaments or established lawes and therefore we must content our selves with them Sect. 3. The Lutheran Churches accord in this Morney's wish The Helvetian confession Rivets custome of preaching on the day MY 2d consideration was that this and other feasts of Christ are retained in the reformed Lutheran Churches and where they are taken away wisht for by sober members as Ph Mornay Du Plessis and approved by the confessions of those Churches as the Helvetian and in other places the day of Christmas afforded the solemnity of a Sermon To this he answers that the Lutheran are not reputed the best reformed Churches nor by the Doctor he believes thought fit to be compared with England and so not fit precedents for our Reformation But sure he might have marked that the Lutheran Churches concurring with the English in this of Festivals t is no way to the disparaging of my argument that I do not compare the Lutheran Churches with that of England T is certainly sufficient if they and the Church of England together may be able to compare with all other reformed Churches which have cast out all festivals as superstitious or Antichristian And thus I shall without much insolence adventure to make the comparison As for the little regard he is pleased to give to such private persons wishes as that of Ph Morney Du Plessis I may reasonably reply that how fastidiously soever he reject it it may very well be allowed to keep the practice of the Church of France from being any example or precedent to us when the prime members of their own Church have exprest their dislikes of it And I pray why was not the Helvetian confession worth his taking notice of that was no bare wish of a private man but the approbation of a Church which Mr. Calvin thought fit to write to for their judgement and suffrage to his new erected model at Geneva As for the passage of giving Sermons to Christmas day I see it is mistaken by him and applied to as spoken of himself and such as he in their former practices and upon that misprision it is that he is so much concerned to have their prayers as good and as large as the Liturgies by the way if they be not much better and sure alwayes to be so why must the Liturgie be abolished whereas all this while I never thought of him or such as he which it seems kept fair with Christmas from whence I am in charity to believe they thought it not Superstition till they had an advantage of ejecting it and then made all speed to close with the
Riot Which I was careful to remove from this Festivity And first having disclaimed it as more intolerable in a Christian then in a Jew and that upon this account that Spiritual joyes are his eminent if not only portion under promise His answer is that these are not limited to one or twelve dayes in a year but are daily joyes every day is a Christmas to a godly heart Rejoyce in the Lord always c. But he that thus answered could not but know that the weekly Lords day is set apart for a Christian Feast dedicated particularly to these Spiritual joyes and that this was very reconcileable with the text that said once and again Rejoyce always and how then can this be opposed to an annual Festival Besides all that I had to say was that the Christian joyes should principally be Spiritual and this not as a proof of the lawfulness of Festivals but of the unlawfulnesse of riots and the Diatribists answer is wholly to that other head to which that was never designed as a medium To which I might 3dly adde that that text to the Philippians is an exhortation to rejoycing in tribulations in the saddest as well as the cheerfullest seasons and so the alwaies is to be limited by the context And then the application of it here was still so much less pertinent In the 2d place my 18th § being designed to shew how separable all riot was from this Festival by the nature of Christian dainties instruction prayer praises almes and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper none of which were capable of luxurie and Festivity and Hospitality which were clearly separable from it His answer is 1. that these two last are thus separable from riot but very hardly And I shall only demand Are the leasure and cessation from business on the Lords day experimented to be more easily separable from it Is it more ordinary for the same men to be drunk upon Christmas day then upon all or upon any one Sunday in the year And have not preachers and magistrates been as industrious to cast out this profane Spirit on the Lords day and been as unsuccessful in their indevours And shall this be any argument for the abolition of that day Next saith he the heathen usages in it almost yielded § 2. as they imply that the festival was instituted to gratify the heathen so God to shew his dislike of them hath suffered them to be attended with two extremes of true worship superstition and profaneness But to this I say 1. that the heathen usages were no way yielded § 2. but only an argument used ad homines that so affirmed 2. If there were heathen usages in it those would no way imply the Festival to have been instituted to gratifie the heathens It was instituted to the honor of Christ and the heathens were farre enough from being gratified with that and t is sufficient if the converted heathens among whom it was instituted by their converters did of themselves assume some of their Gentile customes by them thought innocent in the celebration 3dly T is great presumption and intrusion into Gods secretest Counsels to say that Gods suffering this Festival to be attended with superstition or profaneness was to shew his dislike if not detestation of it For who revealed this counsel of Gods to this Diatribist Besides how easily might this argument be retorted on the Lords day by a Jew and all the riot and unprofitableness of hearers on that day be made an evidence of Gods dislike if not detestation of the setting apart of this day to his service What impiety of any Sect would want arguments to support it if such as these might be admitted Now lastly the matter of the present debate being only that of riot what had superstition or profaneness either or both to do with that His 19th § is the accusing those who keep up and cry up the custome of the festivity yet have taken liberty to lay aside hospitality and charity not only at the time but all the year long To which it is sufficient to answer that then it seems their hospitality is not the occasion of riot to any and that is a Competent means of vindicating the festivity so farre from that part of the accusation which now we have before us But then 2dly it were perhaps worth examining what degree of truth there is in the suggestion and in what instances it is founded something like this he had once suggested before and I had then thought that it was not worthy taking notice of But now the returning of it again more solemly makes me suspect there may be somewhat in it And having no other clue to introduce me into his secrets and the charity and hospitality of those that have cast off the festivals and with it their obedience to the Church beyond those that have retained both having never been so notorious that I could take cognizance of it and the writing a Diatribe against all freewill oblations in a Christian being no vehement indication that those in whose defence it was written were very eminent in the exercise of those virtues I began to pitch upon one thing that might of late have yielded some shew of truth to his observation viz. that the condition of many mens worldly plenty hath been so changed of late that the men have been forced to abate somewhat of the degree of that charity and hospitality that formerly they had both ability and will to exercise and that these fall out to be the men that retain obedience to the Church of England and so keep up and cry up the festivals of the Church though they are not able to keep up the good cheer of it in that degree which formerly they have done And if the Diatribist was willing to take notice of this turne of the tyde and being himself one of the prosperous party that had cast off obedience and festivals but retained hospitality and charity was willing to compare himself with others who being deprived of all their revenues were not likely to hold up their hospitality then sure this is a way of answer which might soon be retorted if justice were allowed to take place and every man were reinvested in his own again In the mean those that are deprived of ability to be charitable on one side as to be occasions of riot on the other if they must be reproacht for their defects in one should not in reason be accused for excess in the other And that is all I shall reply to this answer Unlesse to the 2d part of it I reply in a word that the hospitality attendant on this Festival was never by me defined or imagined and is with no justice by him supposed to be a misers feast nor know I any the least necessity that it should be followed with a neglect of charity all the year after but rather that it be lookt on as a copy which the whole life of a Christian is to