this The Churches that retain these Feasts especially the Lutherans are not reputed the best Reformed Churches nor by the Doctor himself I beleeve thought fit to be compared with England some other Churches in Doctrine and Worship and so no fit presidents for our Reformation What private persons wish or say is not much to be regardded unlesse their reasons bee constringent However we are not alone nor the first in this dis-usage of this Festivall Some Protestant Reformed Churches are with us and afore us As for the Sermons given to Christmas day by some that now disuse it wherin The whole body of their publick devotions is falsely said now to consist their prayers being as good and as large as the Liturgies it will afford him no more succour than this That the Authority then in being commanding Vacation from work they onely took the opportunity to preach to prevent disorders in their people which attend such Festivities And the Authority now in force prohibiting they doe forbear to preach § 12.3 The laying down or disusing the observation of this Festivity is not an act of Division or separation from either the particular Church of England or from the Universall Church in all ages especially that of the first and purest times Not the latter for certain for we have proved afore the first and purest ages of the Church did not observe it Not the former unlesse he will yeeld that the Reformation of the Church of England in former times was a Division or separation from the Church of Rome or the Reformation in Luthers time was a division and separation from the Catholick Church as Papists say it was § 13.4 If Superstition and profaness may be ground sufficient to lay aside a Custome the complexion of the times have long since invited to the laying aside the usage of this Feast His pretences to the contrary are insufficient 1. The omission of Christmas sermons and services tends not to raze out of the minds of the ignorant sort the slender knowledge they have of the birth of Christ and consequent mysteries of Religion For the Gospell being read and preached on all the year long they cannot but often hear of the Birth Life Death Buriall and resurrection of Christ The Knowledge which the ignorant people learned by some mens Christmas Sermons Act 25 was slender indeed nothing but a Superficiall as he Notionall carnall knowledge of one Jesus as that Roman Deputie spake that was borne at that time to give men liberty to Feast be merry 2. This cannot as he charges it gratifie their worldly affections and assist Atheism c. but rather to keep it as usually they did in all Festivall delights like the Revells of Bacchus did both mote gratifie their Worldly lusts and tended to Atheism and profanesse 3. The Casuists whose great reason hee seemes to applaud affirming that the necessaries of beleefe for the vulgar sort are no more than the great Holy dayes of the year spake with as much that is as little reason as their fellowes the Jesuits who say and affirm that Images are the best laymens-books instead of the Scriptures 4. The ejecting of these Holydaies out of the Church will not any with dispatch the opinion of any necessity of beleeving the Articles of faith the Creed being still to be retained in and with the Catechisme for the Ministers preaching constantly of those Truths may helpe not onely in some degree as he but very much and more than the great Holydaies of themselves can doe And why not abundantly sufficient as it was in the first planting of Churches before these Festivalls were invented We have had enough experience that in those places Cathedrall Cities where those Festivalls have been most punctually and solemnly observed taking in there Chrystmas Sermons too there have been found lesse saving knowledge of Christ more Superstition and more Prophanesse than in any Country Villages where the Gospell hath been sinceerely preached § 14. The Impatience of sound Doctrine and readinesse to embrace what ever is novel is not to be found in those of dee per sound knowledge but in the ungrounded professors of former times made formal Christians by external Ceremonies outward Pomp of service But those that endeavoured to Reforme the abuses of Superstition and prophanesse are the men onely or chiefly that propugne and maintain sound Doctrine whereas those that were the greatest favourers of those Festvities some of them either are fallen into the propagating of error Arminianism c. or at least doe little appeare to maintain the truth As for Hospitality and charity at those times its observable in many strong pleaders for Christmas that they are willing enough to abate the charge of the Feast both then and all the year after yet no body hinders them from being Hospitable and Charitable § 15.5 What ever specious design was in the first institutors of this piece of Service to Jesus Christ as after it is called it matters not much Gideons design in making a Golden Ephod was very fair to leave a Monument of his Victory as a pious publik acknowledgement of his thankfullnesse yet it proved a snare to him and his house to all Israel Many of the Superstitions of the now Church of Rome had no doubt a pious design and a shew of wisdome but the issue hath been very mischeivous Even so it hath happened to this Institution now in hand § 16. There may indeed a threefold guilt and danger be charged upon the Institution and continuance of this observance 1. Of Will-worship because it is not commanded in scriptures 2. of Superstition in observing dates 3. Of Riot frequent in such Festivalls The two former he saies he hath spoken to else where viz. both in his Treatises of Will-worship and Superstition and also in his practicall Catechisme In the two former though something be said in generall or in thesi yet nothing that I observe in speciall or in hypothesi of this Festivall Indeed in his practicall Catechisme hee hath undertaken the vindication of it from all these three charges but more largely the two first there aad here more of the last that of Riot we shall consider what he saies in order First to free the Festivall from the charge of Willworship he proceeds two waies 1. In respect of those who retain the usage of it they observe it in obedience to the Lawes of the Church and so it proceeds from obedience to Superiours a duty of the 5 th Commandement This argument should not have had the first place but the second in a just method The Doctor should first have proved that they that instituted the Festivall had a lawfull power to do it before he proved them that observe the usage to be innocent For may not Papists plead the same argument for observation of not onely their Holydaies but of their invocation of Saints adoration of Images and the Masse it selfe They do it in obedience to
without offence to God follow their lawful vocations on that day Rest is made an oblation to God placing the worship of God in the observation of the day as a voluntarie oblation and parallel with the Freewill-offerings in the Law which the Doctor takes speciall notice of * were parts of Gods worship Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ in the service and to the honour of Christ c. Sect. 28. Fourthly Forbidding labours on that day with greater zeal and severer penalties than on the Lords day It was held and accordingly censured as more Piacular to worke upon this day than on the Lords day Fifthly In the necessitie of the observation of it in so much as hee was esteemed no good Christian that did not observe it Sixthly It became a note of discrimination of people as more or less Religious Just as the Doctor observed * Willworship s 28. of the Hasidaei and makes it part of their Superstition or Will-worship That they first began to add to the law of God voluntary performances of their owne then they made them necessary and laid the obligation of them on others to doe as they did and then not being obeyed discriminated themselves from all others as the onely obedient servants of God and so called themselves Pharisees And was not this exemplified in the Institution of this Festivall At first after an Age or two from the Apostles some began to set up this and other days as a voluntary oblation to Christ and a pious Addition to the Lords day others in time made it necessary as Socrates observed and then laid the obligation of it upon others to doe as they did And if they were not obeyed they discriminated themselves from such as refused as the onely pious and Religious men of the Times That good Father Saint Austin was a little faulty here if that worke was Austins All that acknowledge themselves sonnes of the Church observe the Festivalls of the Church cited by the Doctor § 35. Serm. de Temp. 250 To which the Dr. adds 'T is consequent to this that they which observe them not disclaime this sonship and cast themselves out of this family Pract. Cat. And hear the Doctors owne discrimination of himselfe and his party by the censure of himselfe and his party by the Censure of the Refusers The fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivalls of the Church universall the great dayes c. must certainly be looked upon by every man as an act of affected departure from the universall Church of Christ in all ages as well as from the reformed Church of England his mother Sect. 45. Which Sect. 12. he had called an Act of Division and Separation from that Church of the first and purest times How justly or truly let the Reader judge by that which hath and shall be said In the meane time the Doctor hath handsomely given or taken the name of Pharisees to himselfe and his parties as volunteeres in worship above the law of God and left the name of honest modest Karaej unto others who dare not venture to goe beyond or before the Law in worship Obj. But he starts an objection It hath a semblance of that Mat. 5.9 Teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men He answers Doctrines there is the affirming a thing to be the pleasure and command of God as if I should put the Kings broad Seale to a deed of my owne but this is no waies chargeable on those that acknowledge this an Ecclesiasticall institution and pretend it not to be prescribed by Christ I reply 1 Teaching for Doctrines here is not the affirming a thing to be a command of God or not that onely but is expounded by Col. 2.22 after the commandements and doctrines of men That is men out of their wisdome prescribe and by their authority command such and such doctrines either as very pious and pleasing or more acceptable to God as a voluntary worship not alwaies affirming them to bee the commandements of God but holding them out as the Traditions of the Elders as the Pharisees did 2. It s so much more chargeable on them that acknowledge it an Ecclesiasticall Institution as a kind of Superstition because those Pharisees and false Teachers as he saies pleaded Gods Command for their doctrines for what they did in matter of worship But these pretend onely the Churches command which is worse then putting the Kings seale to a deed of their owne For it usurps the very throne of God to appoint his worship which is the highest Treason Other things there are concerning this controversie which we shall take notice of hereafter In pract Catechism and now come to consider how he can vindicate this Festivall from the Riot and excesse commonly found there which he acknowledges a sin and a greater sin in a Christian than in a Jew whose promises were of an earthly plenty c. To which we say § 17. The Jewish promises being for the most part of earthly plenty not onely for they had also spirituall promises they were permitted like children fed with milke and hony a weeke of earthly joyes and pleasures But the promises and exhibitions of them by Christ being all Spirituall to Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Spirituall joyes are as the Doctor sayes well the Christians eminent if not onely portion but these are not limited to one or twelve dayes in a year but daily joyes every day is a Christmas to a godly heart Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies againe I say rejoyce § 18. Festivity and hospitality its true are separable from riot but very hardly And if gluttony and drunkennesse were the prescribed worship in Heathenish Feasts wee have found by long experience they were the practised intertainement of this Festivall which many yeares preaching could not reforme The heathenish usages in it almost yeelded sect 2. as they doe imply that the Festivall it selfe was instituted to gratifie the Heathens by imitation of their feasts at the same time of the yeare so God to shew his dislike if not his detestation of it hath fuffered these Humane inventions and institutions in his service to be attended and celebrated with the two extremes of true worship Superstition and Prophanesse we shall heare anone Sect. 21. That in the ancient Church on dayes of Festivitie men began to adorne themselves sumptuously to shew their pride to fare deliciously to surfeting drunkennesse So soone these abuses got into them and all this while for so many hundred years could not be gotten out by all the Fathers Children of the Church The spirituall dainties of a Christian peace with God and joy in the holy Ghost the quotidian Festivall are free from these excesses Be not drunke with wine wherein is excesse but be filled with the Spirit speaking to your selves in Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall songs making melody in your hearts to the Lord. Those that have most of these care least for
who bring them into the Church On the other side it will not follow the Apostolical Church had a custome to observe the Sabbath of the Jews when they came amongst them to circumcise sometimes to abstain from blood c. to avoyd offence and winne the Jews ergo they that go about afterwards to lay down these are contentious this will no wayes be admitted The reason is because the Apostles afterwards repealed those Jewish customes Two cautions therefore must be added to make the Affirmative constringent 1. That the custome which is pleaded for be brought into the Church by the Apostles themselves for Gospel worship For he saies We we have no such custome nor the Churches of God The Gospel Churches by us planted 2. That the custome pleaded be grounded truly if not so clearly upon the Word of God For this is no good argument against a rational Disputant The present Church of Rome suppose or any Church some centurie or more of years after the Apostles hath such or such a custom ergo we must receive it unless we will be counted contentious But this is thought a good inference The Apostolicall purest Church had a custom to observe the Lords day the first day of the week Act. 20.7 1 Cor. 16.1 2. instead of the old Sabbath ergo that day was instituted by the Apostles and they that reject it or prophane it are more then contentious even sacrilegious And upon these considerations fiderations the Doctor hath consulted ill to his own cause to produce this Text for his Festivall For hee dare not say it was instituted by the Apostles nor can prove it was observed by the prime and purest Church though he oft assert it then the inference is strong against him The Apostle prime Apostolicall Church had no such custom as the observation of Christmas ergo they are contentious who plead for its continuance It matters not then what the ancient usage of the Church of England hath been if it began not with the Apostles in the first Churches Which of the Feast of Christs Nativitie cannot I think be proved I am sure is not performed by the learned Doctor Nor yet that the Church of England was extant in the Apostles times or if it were that this custome of Christmas was from the begining of the plantation of the Gospell amongst us which yet he undertakes to manifest § 2. The latter he first begins with And that it is thus ancient he will prove By one objection against viz. the retaining of some heathen usages in the observation of it which are undeniable Testimonies of the Antiquity and un-interrupted continuance of this practise even from the time of our first conversion For otherwise it is not imaginable how any heathen usage should be found adherent to it But this is no way constringent For they might bee added together with the Festival it self some good while after the first conversion of some part of this Island the better to winne the rest to a liking of Christian Religion by conforming to them in celebration of Festivals as the like was done to winne the Jewes in observing the old Sabbath Pentecost c. The Apostles saies the Doctor to attract the Jews to the Christian Religion Sect. 71. did gratifie them in retaining many of their customs That was for a time but after cast them off And this Festivall being substituted instead of the old Saturnalia in the same Month as is confessed by many Sect. 63. and the Doctor himselfe no marvaile if some heathen usages stuck close to it and could not since be gotten out For those heathen usages continued by the ruder multitude and others too though they have been no part of the office of the Feast yet doe they fully hold out these two things 1. How easie a thing it is for such ill usage to creep into humane Ordinances 2. How hard it is to get them out when once got in being ready to plead prescription Seeing after so long a time as fifteen or sixteen hundred yeares continuance as the Dr. thinks they still attend the Festival people being more tenacious of customs received by the Tradition of their Fathers 1 Pet. 1.18 then of the very Institutions of God § 3.4 For the former that the conversion of England was early is very likely but not so early as is pretended but not proved For as the Histories and Monuments are very obscure and doubtfull differing much one from another so the Doctor himself is very uncertain where to place the beginning or who was the Instrument of our conversion It may be beleeved either Apostolical or very near the Apostles times Faine would hee have us think it was by some Apostle if he knew how to make it out Some affirm it was Simon Zelotes Sect. 6. And there was some colour for the affirmation of Simon Metaphrastes That St. Peter stayed in Britaine sometime converted many and constituted Churches ordained Bishops in the twelfth year of Nero's reign But he slurs his Author thus The authority of this Writer is not great He might have said Nothing worth being contradicted by so many others and by the Doctor himself by and by Yet it might be near the Apostles times by some Apostolicall men some say rather by Joseph of Arimathea for so Mr. Camden reports from as ancient Records and credible as any we have for we have none very ancient or very credible That Joseph of Arimathea planted Christianity here coming out of France Belike Crescens sent him hither to convert she Britains if he did not come and doe it himself For so the Doctor would have it and proves it out of Scripture 2 Tim. 4.10 Crescens sent by St. Paul was gone into Galatia where Galatia may signifie France as some Authors take it and the Doctor is willing to beleeve it For presently though others contradict hee takes it for granted when he sayes What is so early affirmed in Scripture of the communicating of the Gospell to France i. e. by Crescens which is so near to us removes all improbabilitie from those Histories which record the plantation of the Gospel in these Islands in the Apostles times It s easie to beleeve that Crescens if he were in France might quickly step over into Engl. but the former is yet to prove For the Doctor knows very well that very learned men deny that Galatia was there taken for France but for a part of Asia which is far enough from England Yea they demonstrate it as they think that it was not meant of France for which I referre him to Estius on the place 2 Tim. 4.10 However whether Crescens were ever in France or no sure he was not in England to convert the Nation Hear the Doctors own words This which he had said before is an evidence that neither Peter nor Paul nor Crescens nor any of those that usually accompanied either of those two Apostles did bring the Christian Faith to
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
keep it stilo novo 10. daies before us Which difference of observation as was said of Easter argues it not to be Apostolicall nor soon after our Saviours daies as the Doctor saies For if they had instituted such a Feast to the honour of our Saviour they would all have agreed upon the same day in all places as they did in observation of the Lords day for our Christian Sabbath § 8. Upon those his premises he drawes out two Corolaries or Characters set upon this or any other Christian Solemnity Easter Pentecost c. of immemoriall usage in this Nation First that the antiquity of it doth no way argue that it hath any thing of the corruptions of the Roman See adhering to it but the contrary To which we have partly spoken afore and now adde that as the observation of Easter differently from the Western Church doth argue that wee received not our Christianity from Rome so the Antiquity of the observation of Christmas and some other Festivalls suppose in the third or fourth Century may also argue that they have nothing of the corruption of the Roman See we mean since it was judged Antichristian about the yeare 600. adhering to them But yet may have too much of the Corruption of those Churches wherein they were first invented Corruption we say which crept into those Churches not long after the Apostles daies It 's known to all that read the Histories of the Church how many Innovations and Superstitions were crept into the Church long before Rome began to be Babilon And Romish Religion is a bundle of most of those Corruptions § 9. But for the second inference That any such antient usage of this particular Church if it had no other ground to stand on as its foundation or concurrence of all other Churches as pillars to sustaine it were a very competent Authority for the continuance of such a practice in this Kingdome Wee shall take leave to demur a little upon this For grant as wee may that this Anglicane or British Church be very antient by its foundation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for its authority as subordinate to no Forrain Patriarch yet we justly question though the Doctor doe not whither it be invested with such an unquestionable power to institute what Ceremonies it please which may not upon good reasons be changed and abolished It is known sufficiently that many antient Customes and Ceremonies as antient perhaps as his Christmas instituted or taken up by this and the concurrence of many if not most Churches have without temeritie been altered and abolished and others may and must when they be abused to Superstition and prophaness as this Feast will appear to have been It will not be amiss here briefly to consider what that unquestionable power of this or any Church is to constitute Ceremonies for its selfe as it shall judge most useful most for edification and most agreeable to the Analogie of faith which consequently may not without great temerity be changed and abolished by any And then whither this Feast be a Ceremonie of that nature For the first the Authority of the Church to constitute Ceremonies for its selfe it is not justly called unquestionable for it hath for many years past beene the apple of contention between the Prelates and the Non-conformists But before we debate it we desire to know and be satisfied in two things 1. What he meanes by the Church whither 1. the Universall Church for he often speakes of that Sect. 12.45 c. and charges us with seperation and Schism for departure from the Universall Church If so I would say two things First that the Universall Church of the first ages or since never met to institute any Ceremonies for all Churches nor in speciall for this of Christmas Secondly if they had met yet that Church had no power to bind after Churches if they met if they saw cause to abolish them for a reason anon to be given But 2. if he take it of a particular Church as this of England as here he doth then I say again 1. We read of no such Cannons made by the Church at the first conversion to make the usage so antient and to bind all her Children in after ages 2. If we did find such yet the Succeeding Church having the same Power may annull if she see cause what was by them instituted 2. We desire also to know what he means by Ceremonies for this is an ambiguous word under which the Romanists do shroud their Superstitious Will-worship Ceremonies then are of two sorts 1. Meere Circumstances of commanded Worship for the more orderly and decent performance of it Or 2. Parts of Worship as the Iewish Ceremonies for certain were If the Doctor mean it in the latter sense as I think he does wee must again distinguish of such Ceremonies they are either dumbe and non-significant as the Church of Rome hath many or Significant and that either by Nature or by Institution If significant by institution then either by Divine or Humane Institution These Distinctions being premised wee suppose the Doctor does not meane of the Ceremoniall circumstances or Adjuncts of commanded worship for that will not stand him in any stead nor does any man deny the Church a Power to order those But he must meane it of Ceremoniall Worship as opposed to Moral And that not for Dumbe or Non-significant Ceremonies those he dislikes in the Church of Rome but for Significant Ceremonies not significant by Nature those need no Institution but by Institution not Divine that were little lesse than a contradiction but Humane Institution Then the question is this Whither the Church Universall for all Churches or a particular Church for her own members have an unquestionable Authority to institute Significant Ceremonies as parts of worship which may not upon just reasons be changed or abolished This was the Question to be proved but is onely taken for granted in these particulars by the Dr. 1. That the Church whether Universall or particular hath such a power to institute Ceremonies unlesse they be such as tend to Eutaxy and Decencie and the preservation or furtherance of Gods commanded worship what and how many she please as she shall judge most usefull most for edification c. as the Doctor saies but goes not about to prove but takes it as unquestionable This we do deny and wee thinke upon good reasons besides the judgement of Reformed Churches If the Church be allowed such a power the mischiefes will be many As. 1. It s prejudicious to the simplicity of Gospell-worship 2 Cor. 11.3 the simplicity which is in Christ That is in the Gospell of Christ Ceremonies burthenous in the number might turn it into evill Will worship sect 25. It was spoken with respect to the false Apostles who by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subtle perswasive words did corrupt both the Doctrine and Worship of the Gospell as may appear by comparing this place with Col.
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
day than on the other Thirdly that the excesses and riot are onely on other daies after the Nativity is a poor excuse For the whole twelve daies are accounted part of the Festivity and ordered to wait upon it Sect. 39. That feast consisted of all the twelve daies saies the learned Doctor The Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time sect 63. And so the Day it selfe is guilty in part of all the excesses of the following dayes which are services fitter for the Revells of Bacchus or Saturn or for the birthday of an Herod than for the Festivity of a Spirituall Saviour § 27. Hee now passes from the Authority of the particular Church of England to that of the universall Christian Church to shew upon what grounds Festivalls in generall this of the Nativity in special pretend to stand and that he doth by certain degrees or steps § 28. First he acknowledges it hath not its beginning from any institution of Christ but either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church That it was not instituted by the Apostles the same arguments will conclude which are used against their Institution of Easter sect 6.1 There is no mention either of Institution or observation of it in Scripture nor any ground produced thence to found it on 2. Socrates the Historian saies expresly Neither our Saviour Lib. 5. cap. 22. nor the Apostles commanded it the Feast of Easter to be observed and there the scope was not speaking of the Apostles to settle any lawes for Festivall daies but of a good life If for no Festivalls then not for this of the Nativity And its observable what he addes There are some who think all whoredome to be a thing indifferent that do contend for Festivall daies as for life It must then remain upon the succeeding Church And there is no doubt but this is true the succeding Church did set up Festivalls but what Church was that not that of the Apostles age nor that of Apostolicall men that had lived some time with the Apostles For the first Records of Fathers wee have say not a word of any such observation The succeeding Church in the second or third Centurie it seemes began to take it up and then Socrates addes They that received such rites from their Ancestors afterwards transmitted them to their posterity as a Law And here is the most likely Originall of all Festivalls Heare what the learned Lord Faulkland saies in a like case to our purpose some of great authority moved by a good meaning might thus deceive others these thus deceived might deceive others till being generally spread other good men being loath to oppose them for the same reason for which others desired to spread them thinking it an errour that would encrease piety they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles without contradiction To which may be added what he had said in the end of the former page In those things which were beleeved very convenient and yet feared that unlesse men counted them necessary they would be backward to practise how easie was it for them to be after taught under pain of more danger then at first they were delivered with But Superstitious rites were never without a shew of wisdome as the Apostle saies Col. 2.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a faire pretence of Reason And the Doctor gives us one here It being very reasonable that those who acknowledged the receit of such a mercy from God as was the gift of his Son c. should desire to celebrate the remembrance of it and offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ But if this was so very reasonable why did it not seeme so to the Apostles and the Church of that and the next age Or did not they acknowledge the receit of such a mercy and were not their desires as fervent for the celebration of a Remembrance of ir c. would not Christ himselfe respect his owne service and honour Nor his Apostles prescribe and institute a voluntary oblation to Christ if they had thought it so great an honour to him Are not all Superstious inventions of men in the worship of God intended as voluntary oblations to him because they would not have their pietie restrained within those narrower bounds of doing nothing in the service and to the honour of Christ but what was distinctly prescribed and particularly instituted by him which is expresly against the second Commandement by the Apostle under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Willworship Col. 2.23 18. as we have said § 29. Such saies he was the Feast of the Dedication of the Altar among the Jewes not instituted by God himselfe yet the observation of it was approoved and confirmed by Christs presence at that Feast Joh. 10.23 But there may be many mistakes in this and not applyable to the case in hand First there were which he takes notice of three Feasts of the Dedication 1. by Solomon 2. by Zerubbabell at the Repairing of the Temple 3. by Judas Maccabaeus for the purging of it Now hee cannot but know that learned men are divided of which its here meant Some of the first Vide Tolet in Ioh. 10.23 some of the second though its probable it was not meant of either of them both because we read not that those two were ever observed above once and also because of the time of the observation specified it was in winter which the other were not 2. But grant it of the last yet there are reasons to think that it was not a Religious Festivall but civill as the Feast of Purim seemes to be Esth 9.21.22 A day of feasting and joy and sending portions one to another and gifts to the poor And so it s said of the Feast of Dedication 1 Maccab. 4.59 They ordering it should be kept yearly with mirth and gladnesse For though it be said ver 56. they offered burnt offerings yet that was ver 53. according to the Law and so was worship commanded 3. If it yet be said it was a Religious Festivall and so observed even the day it self then it may fairly be suggested That they went beyond their commission in making this feast Annuall and perpetuall which neither Solomon nor Zerubbabell did theirs for ought we read And so those were kept as extraordinary daies of thanksgiving for one turn onely which we grant lawfull to be done by the Superiour powers as also we do extraordinary daies of Humiliation which the Doctor also approves pract Catech. Append. p. 304.4 Another mistake is this that that Feast was approved confirmed by Christs presence at it The t xt produced saies no such thing but onely thus It was at Jerusalem marke that not at the Temple not elsewhere the Feast of the Dedication and ver 22. Jesus walked in the Temple So hee did other daies any day when no Feast was Hee was present in the Temple not at the Feast for ought appeares which it seemes was kept
height But does the Father at all go about to prove this That which he saies is That the preaching of the Gospell so I think he meanes or of Christ by tent makers fishermen and vulgar men took the whole World in few yeares by the power of him that was preached But he saies not a word when the Feast of the Nativity first began to be celebrated 2. His second Demonstration is from the great Taxing of the World by Augustus when all went to be taxed into his own City At which time Joseph and Mary going up to Bethlem Christ was born Luk. 2.6.7 Now the time of this Tax was recorded in the Rolls of Augustus at Rome and the good Father was certified from thence by some that dwell there that it was in such a Month and such a year All this may be granted but this proves onely the truth and time of Christs birth but not the observation of the day as Festivall Yes may some say with the Doctor for the Father addes Those that lived there did observe that very day that we doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their Ancestors and from antient Traditions as the Doctor renders the words and sent us the knowledge of it This might well be if we consider the time and Age that both they and this Father lived in which was as we said in the fourth Centurie an 100. or 200. yeares before might be so stiled an antient Tradition 3. His last Demonstration is from the consideration of the time of Johns conception which was 6. Months before the conception of his and our Lord as the Scripture saies expresly Luk. 1.26 Now the ground of all his large discourse is upon this Supposition that the message of Johns conception came to Zacharias in the month of September from whence the sixth month when the Angell came to Mary and she conceived her Sonne was March and as we calculate it the 25. day From thence count 9. months more and it falls to be just our December and the 25th day thereof But how proves the Father the first that Zacharie was officiating in the Temple in our month of December his discourse is very large The sum of all comes to this Hee takes for granted these two things First that Zacharie was then high Priest and secondly That the time was the Feast of Tabernacles and the day of expiation on the 7th month and 10th day of the month at which time onely the high Priest and he alone went into the most holy place Now saies the Father Zacharie was at this time gone alone into the most holy place and all the people were without praying Luk. 1.9 10. This he proves because it s said when the Angel came to him he saw him standing on the right side of the Altar of incense which Zacharies lot was to burn at that time The Altar of burnt offerings saies he was without and the Altar of incense within the Vail But now if learned men be not mistaken this is a great mistake in this Father So in Ambr. in locum For first the Author of the Notes upon the fift Tome of Chrysostome Sir Henry Savill I suppose makes this observation upon the Fathers words pag. 515. l. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the premises of Chrysostome no conclusion can be collected unlesse first it be proved that Zacharie was the high Priest which yet was not true allthough this Father nourisheth his same opinion in other places by what probable argument at least led to it I know not So farre he Secondly Chemnitius is confident he was not High Priest by many reasons 1. Luke calls him simply Priest and officiating in the order of his course ver 8. and that was of the course of Abia ver 5. who was not of the High Priests line but an ordinary Priest of the 8th course of the 24. 1 Chron. 24.7.10 2. He officiated and burnt incense by Lot but so did not the High Priest but by office Exod. 30.7 3. The Altar of Incense was not within the Vaile but without and there Zacharie was ready at least to burne Incense when the Angell stood on the right side of it The High Priest did offer his Incense indeed within the Vail but that was in a Censer not upon the Altar as is said Levit. 16.12 but he onely took coales from the Altar of the burnt offering and Incense from the Altar of of Incense and put them both in a Censer and offered it within the Vail whereas the other Priests offered it daily without the Vaile Now the Supposition of the Father being ungrounded what he builds upon it will be farre from a demonstration But if all his proofes were good that the month was December and the day the 25. of that month whereon Christ was born wee aske again what is this to prove the Antiquity of the Festivall of the Nativitie Chrysostome himself hath much shaken the Authority of the Church Universall in constituting it and celebrating of it in all ages For it seems it was very questionable in his time whither it was a new or an antient custom Heare his own words Tom. 5. p. 512. l. 15. in the Homilie where he so earnestly pleads for it I know very well that many are even now doubtfull amongst themselves concerning this day some accusing some defending And there is much talke every where about this day some charging it to be new and of late Originall and now brought in Other apologizing for it that it is antient and from the beginning famous and manifest in many places to those that inhabit Thracia c. So that it seems to be a Tradition indeed of some standing and observed in many places but not universally in Chrysostomes time in the fourth Centurie Yea questioned by many and so no universall much lesse an Apostolicall Institution which all this while the Doctor hath endeavoured to make the World beleeve § 45. His conclusion then must needs be like his premises weak and insufficient if not injurious That the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivalls of the Church Universall the great daies c. must certainly be looked upon by every man as an act of affected departure from the Universall Church in all ages and not onely from the reformed Church of England An heavie charge if it can be proved once as it is asserted twice here and Sect. 12. before But now I can return him this answer 1. That he hath not at all proved that the Universall Church of the first Age hath observed any of them nor the Universall Church in many after ages hath observed all those which he hath named 2. There was a time when the Universall Church of some yea many ages and this of England among them I meane during the time of Antichrists revelling in all Churches observed may more Holydaies than the reformed Church of England did observe or he pleads for Will he say the Church of England and
himself are guilty of an affected departure from the Universall Church If the Church of England at her first Reformation saw cause and had Power to throw away some may not the same Church of England having the same power upon just the same or like reasons cast off the rest If he say Hee speaks it of the Universall Church of all Ages and especially of the first age wee shalll joyne issue with him therein and and say If he can prove which I am confident he cannot that in rejecting or not observing these Festivalls wee have departed from the Universall Church in all ages wee shall be content to let his censure fall upon us till then we are safe And for a closure of the whole matter we shall take into consideration his Rule prescribed in his first Quaerie abour Resolving controversies and be judged by it It is this Quaere 1. Sect. 35 What ever hath the concordant attestation of the Christian Church of the first ages the Scripture remaining obscure or silent in the matter that it was the Doctrine or practise Apostolicall there remains not to any that now lives any imaginable ground of sober or prudent doubting or questioning the truth of it This resolution and Case the Doctor beginns with and intends it as a Rule applicable to all the following cases against Socinians and other Hereticks and Schismaticks Sect. 40. Hee means we thank him those that reject this Festivall as Sect. 12. and 45. of this Quaerie appears But is this Rule universally true Are there no cautions nor exceptions yes three at least 1. It must be in cases where the Scripture is either obscure or silent in the matter 2. That it be not extended any further than to the primitive Antients 3. And again to an accordance of those Testimonies without any considerable opposition that this or that was delivered from the Apostles We shall by his leave apply this rule to the case in hand and dare venture to be judged by it First considering the Rule and then the cautions And first for the Rule it selfe we desire to know again what he means by the Church of the first ages If he take it inclusively to take in the Churches of the Apostolicall time while they were yet alive wee should not stick to grant his rule to be good What ever doctrine or practise hath the concordant attestation of that Church it was Apostolicall The Negative whereof being a surer Rule to jvdge by What ever doctrine or practise wants such concordant universall uniform Attestation is not Apostolical For they being all guided by on Spirit would all agree uniformly in the same Doctrine or practice But there are not many things so attested by the Church of that age On the other side if he meane it exclusively of that age and to include onely the after ages it will prove a Crooked Rule Many Doctrines and practises being taken up which were not Apostolicall but meer Inventions of men which like a Gangreen soon overspead the face of the Church And by the different Timing and observation of them proved by the best Divines not to be Apostolicall Secondly for the concordant attestation of the primitive Antients of the second or third Age without considerable opposition which is one of the Cautions that this was delivered from the Apostles I shall put in a just exception in the words of the learned and honoured Lord Falkland in his discourse Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome who plead the universall Tradition of the Church for their Religion as the Doctor does for his Christmas Thus he writes If the Relation of one Pappias could cozen so farre all the prime Doctors of the Church Christian into a beliefe of the celebration of a thousand years after the Resurrection so as that not one of those two first ages oppose it marke that till Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least 250. yeares after Christ nay if those first men did not onely believe it as probable but Justin Martyr saith he holds it and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainer than any other Tradition is proved or said to be out of Antiquity by them of Rome If I say these could be so deceived why might not other of the Antients as well be deceived in other points And then what certainty shall the learned have when after much labour they thinke they can make it appear that the Antients thought any thing a Tradition that indeed it was so c. The Doctors wisdome can easily apply this to the case in hand And I perceive he was aware of such an objection and therefore labours to prevent it by saying That Justin Martyr Quaer 1. sect 38. the prime assertor of it that 's a mistake for he and Irenaeus also had it from Pappias who was their Senior confesses other Christians of pure and pious intentions to he otherwise minded But for that let him answer his friend the Lord Falkland Lo. Falk reply p. 73. who saies That Justin Martyr saies that in his time all all Orthodox Christians held it and joynes the opposers with them who denyed the resurrection and esteems them among the Christians like the Saduces among the Jewes and again saies It found no resistance in above two Ages by any one known and esteemed person And what now is become of the Doctors Rule Thirdly the Rule applyed to the case in hand will prove more then the Doctor intended a light to discover his Christmas far from an universall Apostolicall usage For. 1. The Rule must hold onely in things wherein the Scripture is obscure or silent But for Institution of Feasts particularly this of Christmas the Scripture is neither obscure nor silent For the Scripture is cleare and speaks aloud against it both in the Law the fourth Commandement which requires peremptorily but one of seaven for God allowing six for mens occasions and also in the Gospell which clearly speaks against observation of daies except the Lords day the the Christian Sabbath whither Jewish Heathenish or Christian Festivalls of old were part of the Ceremoniall yoke upon the Jewes and therefore to give the Church a power to institute Holydaies is to reduce the yoke again 2. They have not the concordant Testimonie of the Primitive Antients neither of the Apostles themselves nor of those that lived in the same age with them as of Ignatius nor in the second Centurie of Pappias Justin Martyr Irenaeus c. which may the better be believed because the Doctor brings not one instance of any of those so much as mentioning this Festivall except out of the Constitutions of the Apostles falsely so called which Isodorus by Gratians report of him Dist 16. saies Where known to be corrupted by Hereticks under the name of the Apostles This Chemnitius further proves because the
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
2. The Worship of the Law was for the most part Ceremoniall in externall pompe and services But the Worship of the Gospel is lesse ceremonious and gaudie and more spirituall Joh. 4. in spirit and truth opposed to those ceremoniall typicall shadowes and figures of the Legall worship The Gospel Worship is for the most part morall praying preaching hearing c. without any thing like to that ceremoniall worship except the observation of the Lords day and the two Sacraments designed and instituted by Christ himself or by his Commission But if the Church have a power to institute ceremoniall Worship she may bring us back to a Legall worship equall with the Jewes as the Church of Rome hath done 2. If the Church have any such power to institute Ceremonies they must be either Non-significant ones but those Protestants disclaim as idle fooleries or significant and then either by nature or Institution Those of nature need no Institution If Institution be pleaded it must be either Divine but the Church hath nothing to do with them they are instituted to her hands Or Humane but that 's expreslly against the second Commandement as hath been said elsewhere God onely can prescribe his own worship Hence it was that those Traditions of worship introduced by the false teachers are coudemned because they were the Doctrines and commandements of men Col. 2.22 which when our Divines urge against such kind of ceremoniall worship in the Church of Rome as Humane Institutions they have no way to avoid it Vide Estium Corne l. A lapide in locum but to say Ceremonies instituted by an humane spirit as ours are are there condemned but theirs are instituted by the holy Ghost joyning with their Pastors in the Regiment of the Church as the Rhemists speak on Math. 15.9 and others more And therefore Papists may better plead their binding power than ours can do I shall adde to this That to institute significant ceremonies as a part of Worship is a superstjtious excesse and so Wil-worship which I prove from the Doctors own Concessions To put more virtue and efficacie into things Of Superstition sect 45. then either naturally or by the Rule of Gods Word is in them is a nimiety so Superstition but for men to institute significant ceremonies for edification to teach and instruct c. is to put more virtue and efficacy in them then naturally or by the Rule of the Word that is Divine Institution God put in them ergo The Major is the Doctors own the Minor is evident They have it not by Nature nor by divine Institution then they needed not humane Institution ergo it is superstitious and consequently the Church hath no such power 3. Grant her but such power and there will be no end of Ceremonies no man can tell where she will stay Of Superstit sect 38. unlesse some bounds be prescribed in Scripture The Doctors qualifications That they be few and wholsome have no ground to rest on For who shall judge of the number or unwholsomnes without a Rule Not any private man that 's denyed and very reasonably Not a particular Church the Universall may judge otherwise Not the Universall Church of one Age for the next Generation may be wiser and thinke them too few or too many not wholsom or unwholsom and so may either multiply or annul them See more of this in the Discourse of Superstition Sect. 32.33 Upon this ground grow all those more then Jewish ceremonies of the Romish Church That of the first 2. The Doctor takes for granted also that the Church hath power to institute Holy daies such as Christmas and to make them equall with the Lords day For of this he is speaking while he gives the Church this unquestionable power but he cannot but know this is denyed by many Divines 3. He also takes as yeelded That there is some ancient Institution of this Church for his Christmas from our first conversion which must be the ground for it to stand on and a competent Authoritie for the continuance of such a practise in this Kingdome but this he hath not proved 4. Once more he takes as granted That such ceremonies or Festivals established by a Church That were to restrain our liberty and to exchange one burthen for another So the Dr. of Superstition sect 56. may not without great temerity be changed or abolished by any What not by the Universall Church not by the succeeding Church That were to make the Laws of a particular Church like those of the Medes and Persians unchangeable and equall with the Laws of God Or else to cut short the succeeding Church from the same priviledge of the former and so in time the Church may lose all power to institute New ceremonies or else ceremonies may be multiplyed to the end of the world And so much of the first the Authority of the Church to institute Ceremonies A word of the next Secondly we must enquire whether if the Church have any power to ordain any Ceremonies this of Christmas be such as she may ordain We have said and say again to institute Holy daies and to make them parts of Geds worship is a priviledge of God alone If now the Doctor shall say The Church institutes this Festival onely as a circumstance or Adjunct of Worship commanded it will bee little to his purpose and makes it no more holy than any other day when the same worship is performed But it s evident that in the Church of Rome this and other Festivals are not counted meer Ceremonies in that sense but as parts of Divine Worship and so observed with greater solemnities and more Ceremonies than the Lords day it self which is both superstitious and sacrilegious And thus it hath been with some yea many of our Prelatical and Cathedral men esteemed and observed not onely as equally holy with the Lords day but with more solemn services with more abstinencie from labour and recreations as we shall hear our Doctor confesse anon We now consider what he sayes to prove the disusing of these Feasts blameable § 10. These are part of that establishment which the Reformation in this Kingdom hath enacted for us by act of Parliament To this we say 1. The Reformation formerly made in this Kingdome we have good cause to blesse God for but we know it was not so full and perfect as the Reformers themselves could have wished by reason of the times new come out of the darknesse of Popery and the tenaciousnesse of old customs received by tradition of their Fathers 2. This seems to grant that the Reformation and so the establishment of these Festivals in this Nation was made by the State and not by the Church which now is pleaded for § 11. Secondly This other Feasts of Christ are in the Reformed especially the Lutheran Churches stil retained and where they are taken away in some Churches by some sober members wished for We answer to