them than God in Nature or by his Institution hath put into them Which though they be not properly Excesses of the Christian Religion being common to Heathens and not properly worship yet are they Excesses in Christians that use them and a kind of Superstition call it Religious or Civill as he pleases § 37. And now wee are come to another consideration of the last way that he supposes may be called Superstition and that is Because men place holinesse in some observances amongst us Sest 49 which what ever may be said of it in thesâ—â— in hypothesi or application to the particular cases is generally very false or impertinent Wee shall consider what he saies for it § 38. 1. He askes what is meant by holinesse reall inherent holiness or onely seperation from common uses The latter onely we would answer Separation to holy from common uses that is such a separation to holy uses that the things may no more be alienated to common uses this is proper holiness § 39. But then the onely inquiry will be By whom and how farre any thing is thus separated either by1 Christ Sest 51. or2 the Apostles or the3 universall Church in purest ages or the4 particular Church and rulers thereof wherein we live or 5 if free by our own Act. He tells us here by whom the seperation is made but not a word how far or in what difference a thing seperated by the severall Authors is made holy or whither it be equall in all That a thing made holy by a private person is equally holy with that done by a particular Church and so upwards that of the generall Church equally with that of the Apostles and that of the Apostles equall with that of Christ himself this would first have been resolved Hee seemes to make the difference of the Holiness from their severall Seperations to be onely graduall but wee suppose it to be specificall at least betweene the Seperation of God or Christ and that of the Church to say nothing yet of the Apostles And withall wee say we desire a proofe that any but God or Christ or his Apostles guided by his Spirit can make any thing properly Holy Now to make a thing properly holy is not to separate it onely to holy uses from common as the Doctor defines it Sect. 50. but to make it 1. a part of worship 2. to be efficatious to work and convey holiness to him that rightly uses it 3. to make the service person more accepted 4. To give a ground of expectation of a Blessing upon some promise thereof in the word c. In this sense none but God alone can Sanctifie and Seperate any thing to Holy from common uses All which the Doctor either takes no notice of or takes as granted others may doe For he saies The way to discern whither we exceed that is be Superstitious in any of those afore and place more holiness than is due to them is to account them holy in a degree proportioned to the authority of him that seperated them Wee shall speake something considerable to this For 1. The difference between Christ and his Apostles and the rest is not well or not distinctly laid out For the Apostles authority was also Divine by Christs commission 2. Then it followes that the Authority of the Apostles in their Seperation differed much from that of the Universall Church the rest as much as Divine humane 3. The precept or example of the Universal Church as it cannot be demonstrated ever to have concurred in making any thing holy there never having been an Oecumenicall Councill truly so called so cannot make any thing properly holy with the respects afore said but onely improperly with respect to holy things or duties so made by God e. g. In times or places seperated by God or men there is this difference besides those above that Time or Place sanctified by God require holy duties to till them up But seperated by men they are to wait upon Holy duties In the first the duties are appointed for the Time or Places sake In the other the time or place are appointed for the Duties sake but this is to make any Time or any Place when and where those duties are performed as holy as all other times or places that is the one no more Holy than another We therefore deny that either the Universall Church or any particular Church or any private man can make any thing properly Holy which the Doctor doth not at all undertake to prove Onely thus he goes on If that which is thus seperated be by Christ himself I shall count it holy in that degree and my selfe obliged by virtue of Divine precept and so of the rest and then I offend not But 1. I suppose the Doctor will account himselfe obliged to an Apostolicall institution by Divine precept also I had thought Apostolicall * Hoe thought and said so in his first Quere sect 22. The Apostles Doctrines and institutions are so owned by Christ himselfe that what is truly A postolicall is immediately and by necessary consequence divine and infallible Sect. 52. and Divine had been both one with the Doctor but I perceive he makes them differ and yet differences Apostolicall from Ecclesiasticall as if the Apostles were neither Divine nor Humane but something between both 2. By this distinction of his the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition in placing Holinesse in things times places c. by borrowing the Doctors answer They may say they account them holy but either by the authority of the generall or particular Church of Rome and that is no Superstion saies he say they § 40. But he goes on If my voluntary oblation I perform as a voluntary oblation and onely expect that God that hath promised to accept such will accept it all this while I am not blameworthy But 1. what meanes he by his voluntary oblation If his willingness in tendering commanded worship he cannot doe that worship aright without respect to the command If voluntary worship of his own without a command he hath no promise of acceptance and so can expect none Yea he may rather expect or fear punishment threatned in the 2d. Commandement to such worship 2. The Dr. may remember that Sect. 45. he blamed that for Superstition when virtue is placed in some things which naturally or by the rule of the word does not belong to them and gives the reason Sect 46. because that addes to the promises of the Gospell and fastens a promise on Christ which he hath not made Now how will hee free himselfe from Superstition in his voluntary oblation that is his uncommanded worship unlesse hee can shew a promise in the Gospell for such acceptance For naturally there is no such Virtue in a Willworship and Institution hee cannot plead for that were a Contradiction viderit ipse But hee saies still In case of resolution and vow adde that respect in my performance
the Lawes of the Church and so it proceeds from obedience to superiours Vid. Append a dutie of the 5th Commandement But to the particulars we say many things Pract. Catech on 4. Commandement 1. Did he not a little before found the Times or daies designed to publick worship upon the equity or morality of the 4th Commandement Hear what he saies of the Importance of that 4th Commandement It is a designation of Time for the speciall performing of Gods publick worship and again It is not onely lawful but necessary to set apart some times for Gods service he means by that Commandement Then say I if the 4th Commandement do necessarily require a designation of some Time for worship private as well as publick for so hee resolves in answer to the next question there does not the same Commandement as necessarily require the observation or sanctification of that Time but it must be reduced to the 5. Commandement Let him remember what he saies in his Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 4. If the matter of the command were before commanded by God 't were then no longer obedience to the Law of the Magistrate but onely to God The application is easie and I adde must God be beholden to men either for the designation or observation of his due Time by a duty from the 5th Commandement What if Superiours be so prophane See Sabbath Redevivum at large these things as to set apart no time for Gods worship or not to enjoine and require the observation of that Time is every man free to observe some or none at his pleasure what if there be no Publick Worship what if a man be and live in places where neither Time nor Publick Worship is appointed by Superiours is hee now at libertie to take all Time as his own so it seemes by this Doctrine if men observe Times Lords day and others onely as a dutie to Superiours in the 5th Commandement 2. He takes for granted that the Designation of the sufficient Time due and necessary by the 4th Commandement is in the power of men Church or state which we say belongs onely to God 3. He also supposes that the Church or State hath power to Sanctifie a Time so that it must not ordinarily be mixed with prophane and common uses which wee think God onely can doe 4. He also takes it as granted that the Church may designe as little or as much as few or as many Times or Daies as they shall think fitt and that ordinarily in every week or month or year without Sperstition as an act of piety which we suppose they cannot do without prejudice to the 4th Commandement and to Christian liberty seeing the burden of Jewish Holydayes is taken off by Christ and we reduced to the 4th Commandement as for one day in seaven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works The result of this answer is this that they that retain this usage of the Festival as a day made Holy by the Church or state are both injurious to God in usurpation upon his prerogative in the 4th Commandement and also guilty of Willworship in holding up a Worship not commanded by God against the second Commandement 2. In respect to those who first instituted it without command from others in whom onely it is called Will-worship they are free from guilt too 1. because among the Jewes some Feasts were instituted that of Purim and of the Dedication without command c. 2. Freewill-offerings of this Nature are to be the more not the lesse acceptable for being voluntary To this we say in generall it may be Will-worship to observe what is commanded by others as well as to institute worship without a command In speciall to the first reason the Feasts instituted by the Jewes we shall speak anon here sect 29. To the second of Freewill-offerings wee say 1. These Holydayes of mens Institution are not like those Freewill-offerings of the old Law as we have shewed upon his Treatise of Willworship sect 29. 2. We add it is not in the power of men to institute any worship not commanded by God and is flatly against the second Commandement But these Holydaies are by him made parts of Worship 3. Suppose the Jewes should have made more Holydaies yearly than God commanded would they have been accepted should they not have heard who required these at your hands wee may guesse by their Fasts which they appointed God instituted one Fast onely once a year upon the Expiation day They in their captivity appointed more in the 5. and 7. month yearly but what acceptance found they see Zech. 7.5 when yee fasted and mourned in the 5. and 7. month even those 70. years did yee at all fast to me even to me And may not Papists who have a Saint and an Holyday allmost for every day in the year be justified by this arguing Hath it not a great shew of wisdome Piety Devotion to devoâ—e most of their time to God Are they not their Free-wil-offerings the more acceptable because voluntary and uncommanded Let no man say they dedicate those daies to Saints and Invocate the Saints c. and that makes them abhominable But suppose none of those but the Holy daies be as the Church of England expressed herself devoted onely to the honour of God but yet esteemed as more holy aad as a Worship of God and more acceptable to God because voluntary even these and that other that it s done without command of God will denominate them Will-worship and so odious to God And so much for that Secondly he comes now to vindicate it from Superstition and saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Supestitum cultus worshiping of Daemons or soules of dead men but its little lesse then blasphemie to number Christ with them c. To which we say For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Superstition wee have considered it in his Treatise of Superstition and have found him granting the sense of them to be farre larger than the Worshiping of Daemons And wee have proved it rather to signifie any false Superradded worship not commanded of God A Nimiety or excesse of Religion as Super statutum above the Law of God In a word any false worship of the true God which is exemplified in many particulars there amongst which this is one In placing the worship of God or more holinesse in things times places c. then God hath placed in them Wee shall consider what he saies to vindicate this Festivall from it 1. The Birth of Christ is a mercy of such excellent quality that it can never be overvalued c. This is granted But to Institute a day as Holy without command of Christ for an Annuall commemoration of this is above the power of any Church and a Superstitious presumption and withall needlesse considering that the Lords day which includes the commemoration not onely of his Birth but his Resurrection and the
whole works of our Redemption by him was instituted by himself or his Apostles by him authorized and inspired for this very end comes about once in every week To limit it therfore to one day in a year to remember that Mercy is not an exaltation but a derogation from it If this were done on his owne designed Day wee need not fixe another day 2. The exercises done upon the day are acceptable duties any day therefore upon this True but then any day whereon these duties are done is as holy a Day as Christmas day or if he think the duties are more acceptable for the Dayes sake or for the voluntary dedication of it by men I feare they will be so much lesse acceptable to God and no better than Superstition 3. There may be excesse and Superstition in setting out a day every year as Holy as a woship of God as Super statutum where God requires but one in seaven as Holy for men to command more is too much presumption His reasons against it are invalide 1. Because a dutie cannot be performed without time True but without a set a fixed holy time it may Here 's a fallacie from time as a naturall and necessary adjunct of an action to Time as Holy as Worship Which yet is not observed by the Doctor For he with others seemes to hold Time in the 4th Commandement to be onely an Adjunct of worship as of any other action but we think Time in the 4th Commandement is a part of worship And this I think they do make it in this present case For they doe not onely make the duties praying praising preaching c. a part of worship Sees 48. which they are every day when they are performed but the very Dedication and observation of the Day it selfe to be a voluntary oblation a Freewill-offering an honour and service to Christ as wee shall hear 2. Abraham saies he rejoyced to see this day and the Angells rejoyced on the very day c. So would we if wee knew the Day but this does not prove that they intended to set that day apart as Holy without command from Christ the Lords day being appointed for that end 3. The abstaining from labours is partly though not onely the excesse for it makes it necessary as a duty of an Holy day when God hath not made it necessary having allowed 6 daies for mens own works though Rest be agreeable to holy duties Festivities and Fasting daies of Gods command yet then it presupposes a Command of God for those Duties and Daies Or if the Time be onely an Adjunct of those duties then Rest is necessary onely naturali necessitate not moralj because no man can solemnly for any time wait upon God in holy duties and his labours too But this is necessary any day when holy duties are performed 4. For the 25 th day of December to be the day of Christs birth wee shall speake to it hereafter ad sect 36. Onely wee observe what he saies upon the mistake of the day That the mistake will be very pardonable in those who verily think they are not mistaken They doe perform the businesse of the day as compleatly and substantially on a mistaken day as on the true one and the excuse of blamelesse ignorance will wash away greater errours than this if an errour Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists Doctrine of veniall sinnes It puts me in mind of a subterfuge of Bellarm. and others when we object upon their owne confessions that there may be danger of Idolatry in the Sacrament if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body of Christ They answer There is no danger of it to one that fimply beleeves it is and worshiping after his wonted manner For in such things humane certitude is sufficient So Jacobs lying with Leah instead of Rachell ignorantly was not guilty of adulterie c. This is saiesacute Chamier not to take away Idolatrie but to stupifie the Idolater can any ignorance be blamelesse against a Law of God or wash away an Errour without the blood of Christ Would not Christ have revealed the very day if he had intended the day to be kept holy as a worship of himself But I shall put him a case Suppose the Jews had mistaken the day of the week for the Sabbath or the day of the month for the Passeover had they not sinned because they thought they were not mistaken Had the business been as compleatly and substantially performed on a mistaken day as on the true one When the very day was as strictly commanded as the business it self Let him consider it I shall here insert the judgement of the learned Chemnitius who though he allow the observation of this and other Festivals as a Lutheran with a reservation of Christian liberty Exam. Conc. Trid. p. de diebus Fest p. 265 without necessity of obligation c. yet he notes no less then thirteen wayes or kinds of Superstition in Papists observation of Holy daies We note some of them 1. In placing Holinesse in the dayes which God hath not placed in them 2. Esteeming the services then done better and more holy and acceptable then if done on other dayes 3. Placing the worship of God on them in ceasing from labours and frequenting of Churches 4. Forbidding of labours on those daies when they hinder not the publick Worship 5. In the Necessity of observation 6. In the multitude of them To which may be added that 7. They discriminate persons to be more or lesse holy as they observe or neglect them And lastly as more grace and blessing is expected from such voluntary uncommanded observances Now how far many men amongst us are guilty of all or some of these kinds of Superstition it remains to discover First for placing holiness in them equall with the Lords day and above other dayes It appears both by mens words and deeds By word in calling them Holy daies and equalling them with the Lords day See Sect. 59. To be esteemed above other daies of the year c. consecrating it from common to sacred uses as both of the Churches instituted The Doctor himself sect 20. calls this Festival most sacred and sect 24. tels us The day hath been observed if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year c. And so it was in all Cathedrals at least with more solemn services with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day on which sports were permitted but no touching cards or dice that day Sect. 77. being more then lawfull pious in it self Ibid. Secondly not onely the services but the observation of the day also was esteemed an higher piece of service than that of the Lords day more acceptable then commanded worship because more voluntarie So the Dr. often Thirdly Sect. 59. An oblation to God in honour to him c. Treat of Wilworship sect 29. See sect 59. people may not
him what sayes he to that place of the Gospel Be ye holy as he is holy 1 Pet. 1.15 16. Which is taken out of the Law Levi. 11.44 c. Did God then or the Gospell now call men to an Imperfect Holinesse and set God for their patterne But doth not the Doctor himself say Christ came to perfect the Law in his Catech supra pag. 93. and to set it higher than before And yet is he certain and confident perfection is not under evangelicall precept now And is not that perfection the perfection of the Law still though it be required by the Gospell Doth not the Gospell call for the perfection of the Law upon new motives of the Covenant of Grace of the merits and death of Christ upon indeed better termes as mediating that if we doe as we do fall short of that perfection yet we shall be pardoned all our failings And thirdly I aske what it is that makes the burthen of Christ requiring the same the Doctor saies greater perfection of the Law so light and supportable the rod of command so not grievous i. e. possible let the Doctor answer the question himselfe in his Catech. p. 95. It is made lighter by Christ 1. in taking off that unprofitable burthen of ceremonies that had nothing good in them durius dictum 2. in respect of the damning power of every least sin or breach under the first covenant to the beleever taken away in the second 3. in regard of greater strength given c. It was was not then the lightnesse of the burthen that hee required not perfect Holinesse under the Gospell for that he does 2 Cor. 7.1 but that if by repentance faith and love we sincerely endeavour after perfection first our failings shall be pardond 2. and our weake works accepted through Christ our mediator But still perfection though not acquirable here is under Evangelicall precept § 47. Whence it is apparent that that so plausible assertion as the Doctor calls i◠that every one is bound to doe that which is best is not as he disernibly false but visibly true For if the Law and Gospell also require perfection of obedience in every Commandement then it bends every man to doe that which is best And his arguments against it are little worth 1. For the Testimonie of the Apostle 1. Cor. 7.28 He that giveth in marriage doth well and he that giveth not doth better For 1. well and better there do not referre to morall goodnesse but Worldly good in regard of the prevention of troubles in those afflicted and persecuting times Marriage is in it selfe a thing indifferent and so it may be good for some to marry and better for others not to marry 2. The matter is how the parties are disposed If a man have not the gift of continence it is not onely good but necessary for him to marry rather than to burn and here it cannot be said he that giveth not in marriage doth better but doth very ill If a man had the gift of continency is was better in those times for the present distresse ver 26. not to marry but still with respect to Worldly not morall good 2. His other argument is as weak That the best being a superlative supposes the positive to be good whereas if all were bound to do that which is best that which were onely good were evill for so is whatever comes short of what we are bound to do I hope the Doctor will not deny but works done by faith are Good and yet that they are not perfect in this life that is come short of what wee are bound to doe if not by the Law yet by the Gospell will he now say Greg. moral lib. 9. c. 1. they are evill They are called good by the indulgence and acceptance of God in Christ but not strictly or perfectly good He knowes who said it Omnis humana justitia injustitia esse convincitur si districtè judicetur § 48. The next Objection raised by him helps to confirme the former answer The Law is Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul strength c. which implyes the utmost endeavour to perfection in all our obedience He answers that that phrase denoteth onely two things Sect. 49. 1. sincerity of his love of God as opposed to partiall divided love or service 2. the loving him above all other things not admitting any thing in competition with him or in such a degree of love But we say 1. That both these are noted required we grant but deny that onely these are required for the Law required perfect love John 4.18 perfect love casteth out fear such as was in Adam in innocency but that is not acquirable in this life 2. If he will but grant that whatever comes short of that perfection needs and by grace shall find a pardon and be accepted we contend no farther For let it be supposed yea granted that sincere love is capable of degrees whither in the same man at severall times or two men at the same time and so both obey the precept yet those degrees and growth of love do argue love not to be perfect and so not strictly answerable to the Law so farre faulty in vitio as Hierome said above But what shall wee say to that Instance of Christ himselfe Who we know did never fail in performing what was mans dutie in prayer or any thing else yet at that time Luk. 22.24 prayed more earnestly which is a demonstrative evidence that the lower degree is not necessarily sinfull when the higher is acceptable to God which when it is granted there will be no doubt but these freewill-offerings will be reconcileable with that command and so room left for a voluntary oblation But wee say to this This example of Christ will not be applyable to men For Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law required and did supererogate in many his actions and passions and so in the degree of affection in prayer if not in the prayer it self But men are so farre from Supererogating by any service prayer or the like that they fall many degrees short of what is required and due from them and so no room left for freewil-offerings as his voluntary oblations Yet thus much that example holds forth that greater pressures and necessities call for enlargement of affections not as voluntary oblations but as duties § 50. c. And this makes way for another and the last objection That if it be granted possible for a Christian to do more than he is commanded he may then supererogate as the Romanists teach The Doctor answers 1. There is a great difference between offering that a man may do more than is commanded and that he may do something which is not commanded The former supposes him to have done all commanded the second may be true though in most or all other things he have been wanting Hee asserts the second not