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
Fathers of the first Ages doe not so much as intimate any such usage in their times No mention there is amongst the most antient of celebrating the Feast of the Nativitie till Basills Nazianzenes and Chrysostomes time who lived not till the fourth Centurie at least They say indeed it was in practise in some places before their time but that might be some 100. more or lesse years and yet be farre from the first ages of the Church or being Universall 3. Another of the Doctors cautions is it must be attested without any considerable opposition But this his Christmas found in the fourth Centurie as we heard Sect. 44. In Chrysostomes time there was a considerable opposition Many being doubtfull many charging the Festivity with novelty and as of late brought in For a conclusion then of all the Doctors Censure is too harsh and the Character too hard that is set upon the refusing of it That it hath nothing but the Novelty and contempt of Antiquity to recommend it unto any We shall onely put him in mind of two places in his owne writings The one here at Sect. 35. the other Testimony of Nicephorus That Justinus the Emperor first commanded it to be kept Festivall over the world Then say I it was not an Universall usage in all ages of the Church which the Doctor hath so long pleaded for for Justinus lived in the sixt Century I know what hee answers to it That belonging onely to the edict of the Emperour for the universall observation doth no way prejudge the Churches whither Apostolicall or Primitive Institution of it It s enough to prejudge the universall observation of it in all Ages and consequently it is not Apostolicall The other place is in his Practicall Catechisme where he confesses pag. 181. It was not solemnized universally till about 400. yeares after Christ. How often hath he charged us with departure from the Universall Church in rejecting and not observing the Festivities of the Universall Church c. Sect. 12. and in that Sect. 45. I hope upon second thoughts hee will be more moderate in his Censures and find that his rash zeale for the Authority of the Church his Mother and Tradition of the Antients his Fathers hath carried him beyond the bounds of Reason and Religion § 46. The remaining part of the Doctors discourse is spent in answering 16. Quaries propounded by another But most of what hee hath said may be taken away by what hath above beene answered I shall not put my sickle into another mans Corn but leave it to the Author of them or some friend of his to vindicate them § 74. The Doctor now for a conclusion drawes out some Quaeres of his owne to be considered and answered by him that shall undertake this businesse as a shorter way to question and debate the truth or supposed certainty of some of his own principles For an essay this § 75. Whither it be not lawfull for the Church either nationall of one or Universall of all parts of Christendome especially of that age nearest the Apostles of the first and purest time to take upon it to institute one or more daies upon any speciall occasion of some eminent mercy of Gods toward the whole Church to be used yearly in acts of Christian piety and charity Chemnit Exam. de dieb Fest Ames Medul in 4. precept D. Riv. in Exod. 20. p. 206. 6. by all the Children of that Church and to expect obedience from them But under favour this is not the question now between us For not onely the Lutherans but even the most rigid Calvinists and Nonconformists as they were called do grant That the Church or rather the State hath power to set apart any day to the acts of piety and charity not onely upon extraordinary eminent mercies but upon ordinary occasions provided 1. They be not too many for number nor 2. Imposed as necessary to the prejudice of Christian libertie Nor 3. made parts of the worship of God and other like cautions and conditions by them prescribed And if the Superiour Powers shall appoint such daies so qualified this may secure both those that institute them and those that observe them from any crime of Superstition It s more then probable that they who first appointed those daies in memory of the Martyrs in their particular Churches intended no more but on such a day yearly to commemorate the Faith and constancie of those holy Sufferers as with thanks to God for his Graces in them so to the Incouragement of other Christians to imitate their virtues But after Ages soon grew Superstitions in their Number in their use and end Dedicating daies to to Saints Invocating them in their prayers Making the observation of them necessary The daies themselves holy holyer than other daies than the Lords day placing the worship of God in them expecting more acceptance more blessing from the services of those daies as a voluntary worship These abuses were foreseen by the Reformed Churches and thereupon either the Daies were rejected altogether by some or cautioned against by others especially by this Church of England as all doe know But when this last generation of misdevout men began to exceed in the honour estimation and observance of those remaining Festivalls especially this of Christmas equalling them with if not preferring them above the Lords day as was said before c. then those that were conscientious and tender of the Worship of God beganne to oppose such inchroachments upon it who formerly did observe the daies and others that thought they had Power in their hands did lay them aside upon these reasons It were too long to instance the particular Superstitions not onely of the vulgar people but even of many Divines discovered in their Practises and Discourses against the Lords day and for the Holydaies None that I know or have met with have manifested more waies of being Superstitious in this Subject of Holydaies than the Doctor in this discourse of Festivalls as hath beene made appeare at the end of the sixteenth Section to which I referre the Reader and proceede to his second question § 77. Whither such an antient Institution of the Church of Christ by name the anniversarie feast of Christs birth though it be not affirmed to be commanded by Christ or instituted by the Apostles or in it selfe considered without respect to the Institution absolutely necessary to the being of a Church yet being thus more than lawfull pious in it selfe proper in respect of the ground primitively Catholick if not Apostolick in respect of the Institution may be lawfully abolished c. Wherein the Doctor takes for granted these things which he hath not proved 1. That this Festivall is of so antient Institution as primitively Catholick if not Apostolick Seeing it hath beene made appear to be neither 1. Apostolicke or 2. a Primitive Institution nor 3. Of Catholick observation till at least the 400. yeare by his owne confession 2. That it
this Island He might have added Nor Joseph of Arimathea nor Simon Zelotes upon the reason there by him given The Affirmation of Gildas that this was in Tiberius's Raign was meer Tradition and farre from probability For then England should be converted within four yeares after Christs death In the 18. of Tiberius our Lord suffered and Tiberius raigned but 22. in all No Authors of any credit lay it so high As for Tertullian and Origen they lived both in the third Centurie above 200. years after Christ And it s very likely Christianity was planted here in some parts some time before them But it s very observable that neither of those Antients nor any before them in all their writings ever mention the Feast of the Nativity as then in observation though they often speake of other usages of the Church before and in their times The most probable opinion is that though some persons of this as of most Nations were converted early to the Faith yet the Nation or any considerable part of it was not converted till King Lucius his time about the yeare of Christ 180. the first Christian King in the whole world which is a great honour to our Nation This was done say Historians in the time of Eleutherius then Bishop of Rome who lived towards the end of the second Centurie And his Epistle to King Lucius if that be Authentick Sir Henr. Spilm concil Brit. p. 16. for the Doctor doubts it and well he may if hee do but remember what a learned Historian saies doth not say that Britain had long ago before Lucius his time received the Faith but rather nuper lately and so it was in the Latine in the Doctors Margine but wisely left out in the English which why it was done let others judge Historians say that King Lucius desired of Eleutherius that he and his people might have some sent to baptize them who accordingly sent Fugatius and Damianus Now if Christianity had been planted here from the Apostles times or by Apostolicall men it s not probable that they left no Presbyters here to baptize but that they must send to Rome for such which would give Romanists a fairer plea to subject England to Rome then that of Augustine the Monke which the Doctor disputes so much against hereafter § 5. Dioclesians persecution falls in the beginning of the fourth Century after Christ before which time wee hear of Christianity planted here and it may be the Feast of the Nativity was set up in some Churches before this time but not universally in all till about 400. years after Christ as wee shall hear the Doctor confesse before we have done though he pleads hard to prove it a custome of the Church in all ages And this may serve anon to answer that which will be produced for the Festivitie that Dioclesian slew 20000 Christians assembled together on that day though the Author of that report is of no great credit § 6. The celebration of Easter by the antient British Churches contrary to the custome of the Western Churches will give little light to the maine question concerning the first Plantation of the Gospell here by the Apostles c. or the Antiquity of the Festivall pleaded for It may indeed argue that England did not receive Christianity first from Rome in Augustines time but does not prove that those that planted Christianity here were such as in the Apostolicall times kept their Easter after the Jewish manner For the Eastern Christians commonly kept it so but not in the Apostles times Which the Doctor takes for granted but is denyed him and that upon these Reasons 1. There is no mention of either the Institution or observation of it in Scripture nor any ground to found it upon The Apostles did take advantage of that and the like Solemnities to preach to the Jewes to convert them as was said afore but so farre were they from Institution of them as Christian Feasts that they do expresly repeal them and cry them down 2. Lib. 5. c. 22. Socrates the Historian saies The Apostles were not sollicitous to appoint any Festivall daies at all then not this of Easter 3. The difference of the observation of it in the Eastern See Lo Falk reply p. 99. and Western Churches makes it evident it was not Instituted by the Apostles for then it would be uniformly observed in all places And as for the Authority of the succeeding Church in such matters we shall meet with it anon yet this we say at present that the observation of Easter hath better Antiquity than this of Christmas though not Apostolicall § 7. But the Doctor hath found one Evidence of moment Christmas day is called in our old Monument Midwinter day whence it may reasonably be concluded that when that name was first applyed to that day Christmas day was in the Calendar either coincident with or not far removed from the Winter Solstice and wee continue to call the 24. of June Midsomer day halfe a year from the 25th of December How sweetly all agree John Baptist was conceived six months before our Lord and and so born six months before him Hence the Feastmasters plead his birth on the 24. of June and his and our Lords on the 25. of December 1. But I would be satisfied which is the Older Festivall that of John or this of Christ It s observed by Chemnitius that the Feast of the Nativity was not heard of in the most antient Church till towards the 400. year but no mention of the Feast of Iohn Baptist till towards the 800. year Or it may be they were both appointed about the same time upon supposition then by the Western Church that our Saviour was borne on the 25. of December as the Doctor saies and the Feast of Nativity setled upon that day either they or some others placed the Feast of Iohn Baptist on the 24. of Iune that all might correspond 2. If the names of Midwinter day and Midsommer day were so called here while the Island was Heathen they were far more antient than Christmas Day and then Christmas day was rather applyed to Midwinter day than Midwinter day to Christmas day but however it was it followes not as the Doctor would have it that it must be soon after our Saviours times that this day was capable of that appellation and consequently that the day was here celebrated so early For it might be a good while after so called when the Island was first converted which was not as we have discoursed till towards the end of the second Century 3. It is confessed by the Doctor that Midwinter day is a fortnight sooner than our Christmas day the solstice being about the 11. of December Then say I they kept not Christmas day on Midwinter day for that 's a fortnight sooner So wee keep it not on the same day with our first converts nor yet on the day that the Western Church now keep it who