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
the two former affirmations voluntarie worship is an addition to the rule of worship and eo nomine Superstition and that is sinfull But I have already shewed that all additions to that rule are not Superstition and that all that is by any called Superstition is not eo nomine sinfull and so I am safe from that proof also So in like manner from the 3d which is but another repetition put in form of question Why is the worship of Angels and Saints criminal but because it was invented and added by the will of man This question was answered long since that the worship of all creatures is criminal because the command is positive and exclusive that God and none but the one God is to be worshipped and though the doing what is not commanded is not a sin yet the doing what is forbidden must needs be sinfull and such is the worshipping of Angels c. What he here addes in the close of this 3d proof that they I suppose who worship Angels do not urge it as a commandment of God was sure very unnecessarily inserted For I never doubted but there are other sins besides dogmatizing and can now promptly suggest to him competent store of instances sure the murtherer is a sinner though he teach it for a doctrine from heaven that it is lawfull to kill his brother c. And then why should not the worshipper of Angels against expresse precept Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Thou shalt not bow down nor worship be a transgresser of that Commandment though he oblige not as from God any other man to do the like His last proof is ab incommodo If wilworship saith he be innocent I cannot see how all that rabble of Superstitious worship at Rome can be condemned for they are not held out as Commandments of God but traditions of men The answer last given to the appendage of the 3d proof is sufficient to this also Other faults there may be in worship beside holding it out as the Commandment of God It may for the object of worship take in somewhat beside God or for the ceremonies it may multiply them unprofitably ridiculously or it may be pretend more virtue in them then really belongs to them and many the like But these I mention because if it be true what is here suggested that the worship at Rome is really superstitious and that there is a rabble of that worship there as is supposed in the question the answer is already given by the very proposal of it and hath without any violence to my hypothesis which undertook not to justifie all or any other Churches in their worship but onely that of England which is known to be free where Rome I adde where the Greek Church in as high a degree as Rome is guilty And this may serve for the 3d grand discovery of causes Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmass Festival Of Church Laws THe last ground of mistake assigned by the Diatribist is that the Dr. takes for granted That a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded by God which remains upon him to prove before he can vindicate his Festival as he and others maintain it from the double crime of Superstition and Wil-worship If this differ from the third as in reason it ought else why should it be added to it then the mistake is not onely or so much that I affirme as that I take for granted when I ought to prove that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded by God Now I shall at once prove my affirmation and apply it to my Festival as he calls it and shew that I have already proved it and so not taken it for granted as is here suggested For the former I offer this probation whatsoever is in it self perfectly free or lawfull by the Law of God and that libertie no way retrenched that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe But the Christmass Festival or annual commemoration of Christ's birth is in it self perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God and that liberty no way retrenched Ergo. Of the major I suppose there can be no doubt if there be these three considerations will clear it 1. Because whatsoever is perfectly free and lawful that the Church or the Christian hath power to do unless that libertie be some way retrenched to him 2. What every particular Christian may freely do that he may still do when it is by the Church prescribed or instituted else that act of the Church prescribing shall render that which it prescribes unlawful being perfectly lawful before that prescription and if upon the most Anarchical principles that should be supposed to have any reason it then still that liberty is some way retrenched the contrary to which is supposed in the major proposition 3. Because the Church meaning by that word the Vniversal Church of God whether of the Apostles times including them chief pastors thereof or of the purer times succeeding together with the Governors of each Church succeeding the Apostles hath the power of Stewards noted by the Keyes intrusted to it by Christ and consequently may dispose order institute for her members in those things which she shall judge to tend to the honor of God and to edification though it be not immediately commanded so it be not any way prohibited by God As for the minor that the Christmass Festival is thus free and lawful doth also appear by the no prohibition of God's in force against it by the lawfulness of praising God and commemorating the gift of Christ on any day one or more in the year and consequently on the 25 of December by the analogie of other Festivals among the people of God in all ages and by the answer to all objections to the contrary and the evidence of the matter that this libertie hath no way yet been retrencht by God that gave it And all this severally cleared in the former discourses and the chief of them again vindicated here by answer to the Diatribists pretended discovery of my mistakes On which that I do not now think my self obliged farther to insist by addition of more evidences the reason will be soon discerned by taking notice of the one proof which he here subjoyns to this his last ground in these words Which I prove by this one argument If all additions to the word in matter of worship be criminous and sinful as prohibited by God Deut. 4. 2. and elsewhere then no man or Church can without sin adde any worship to that commanded by God But the first is true Ergo. Where it seems the whole matter is devolved to that one issue whether the text Deut. 4. 2. and the 2d Commandment for there is not any other elsewhere any other text by the Diatribist produced to that purpose be sufficient to prejudge the using or
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
opportunity but of some other preachers in other Churches where this Festival was not observed such as Andrew Rivet in the Low Countreys who as I have been informed constantly preacht on that day to his auditors which was a civility fit to be mentioned to those that will now perform that office on any day of the week rather then on that Sect. 10. Ejecting festivals Separation from the purest times even those of the Apostles Our Churches departure from Rome unjustly paralleld with the departure of sons from our Church MY 3d consideration was that the rasing this Festivity out of the Calendar is an act of separation from the Church of England and the universal Church of all ages especially of the first and purest times To this he answers by denyal of both parts Not the latter having proved as he saith that the first and purest ages of the Church did not observe it Not the former unlesse I yield that the Reformation of the Church of England was a division and separation from the Church of Rome or the reformation in Luthers time a separation from the Catholike Church as Papists say it was But for the former of these it is sufficient to reply by way of demand where it is that he hath so proved this of the first and purest ages not observing festivals that he can affirm it certain that this of disusing or laying them down is not separation from the Church of those ages Truly my eyes or my memory very much fail me or he hath not as yet proved it in any degree much lesse so demonstrated it that a Corollary deduced from thence and depending on that probation should deserve to be pronounced certain Nay sure there hath yet been no occasion offered him at least made use of by him to attempt so impossible a thing as is such a negative probation Of this I am sure that for this Festival and that other of Easter the reason must be the same and I have already made it as clear as the day that that was observed by the Apostles of Christ by Philip and Iohn on the Iewish day and by Peter and Paul on the annual Dominical And if through the dimnesse or want of stories of those times this be not so evident of this particular Feast of Christmasse yet the analogy holding directly betwixt the one and the other the argument remains as firm that the laying aside either this or that festival is a separation from the Apostolick and those sure are the first and purest times Besides I have as clearly shewed that the solemnities and festivities commemorative of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp two Bishops that lived in the Apostles times were observed from the very times of their deaths and that in compliance with other the like festivals of the Church before them which must needs come home to the observation of festivals in the Apostles days And then how can this Diatribist flatter himself that he hath proved the contrary to this when he hath not so much as offered either the least answer to these or any the least reason or proof of his negation For the latter I reply that there is no analogie betwixt the Church of Englands departing from Rome and the Diatribists departing from the Church of England I might instance in many t will be sufficient that I shew it in two particulars 1. the Church of England in the Reformation departed not from their lawful superiors being as the Diatribist acknowledges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and owing no subordination to the Church of Rome when she departed from her whereas the persons then spoken of by me and the Diatribist for one were certainly members that ought a Christian obedience to the Church of England as inferiors to superiors and so departed from their lawful superiors wherein Schisme doth principally consist as hath elsewhere been shewn Those things wherein the Church of England reformed and departed from the Romish opinions and practices were none of them such as this of festivals now appears to be i. e. common usages of the Vniversal ancient especially of the Primitive purest Church but innovations unduely brought in by them and imposed on all Christians And as even now so again this Diatribists confession here is more to the advantage of the Romish Church then any thing that he could likely have said no way clearing his fact from Schisme nor offering the least colour to it and yet acknowledging that the Church of Englands reformation and so Luthers reformation also was as truely an act of Schisme from Rome as is theirs from the Church of England But I must put in my protestation of dissent to this proposition also and that is all I need to say to that answer Sect. 11. The profanenesse objected to the Festival Casting out the Creeds HIS answer to the 4th consideration is so slight and therein so little on which to fasten any reply that I may safely intrust the Reader with it and only minde the Diatribist 1. that till he hath more solidly proved the observation of this Festival among us to be superstition then hitherto he hath done t will be great uncharitableness thus to accuse it and greater injustice to destroy the innocent for this if it were true yet but accidental and removable crime imagined to be adherent to it And 2. till he hath written as full a tract of profaneness as he hath done of Superstition and been more successefull in his evidences that this Festival is guilty of it shewed that that is derived from super statutum also or evinced the same thing by some more sensible way of probation t is but a pitiful begging of the question thus irrationally to accumulate crimes on innocency to adde the Profanenesse to the Superstition to suppose the Festival able to work miracles to reconcile the most contrary extremes as if in the vein of declaiming he should call the same man first Papist then Socinian for such he knows are Superstition and Profanenesse In stead of which it were much more seasonable for him sadly to inquire which is most liable to the charge of profanenesse the setting apart a festival from common uses to the commemorating the birth of Christ in Prayer Praises Eucharist hearing the word read and preached and profiting by all these or the fastidious refusing to joyn with the Church of God in all or any of these offices at that time following the Plough or attending the Shop in stead of it And I shall with the same seriousnesse desire him to review his words p. 147. Where in answer to my mention of disusing the Creeds and Catechisme he saith in a parenthesis that the Creed is still to be retained in and with the Catechisme and demand whether he doth not know that the same Tempest that carried away the Festivals swept away more then one the three Creeds received from the ancient Church and retained in our Liturgie and together with them the Church