whether if a Christian had observed some Jewish ceremony which did not foreshew Christ to come but significant only of something past though they had not taught it necessary the Apostle would not have blamed them for that as superstitious and so for any new rites and ceremonies To which I answer considently and to the latter first that he would not and the very asking or questioning it in that form as if it could not be denied but the Apostle would have blamed them is the known fallacy of begging the question For the whole matter of controversy betwixt me and the Diatribist is this whether every devised rite or ceremony not commanded by God be superstitious And to the former part of the question I answer as confidently and ask him first what he thinks of the abstinence from things strangled and all eating of bloud was not that a Jewish ceremony and was not that observed by Christians Act. 15. and did the Apostles blame it as superstitious Certainly they did not Nay did not this observance continue among Christians for many ages Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis habemus suffocatis morticinis abstinemus we have not the bloud of any living creatures in our feasts we abstain from things strangled and that die of themselves saith Tertullian Apol. c. 9. And Lucian tells us how his Peregrinus was rejected by the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for eating some of their forbidden meats which sure belongs to this matter and in Eusebius's history l. 5. c. 1. Biblis thus vindicates the Christians from the accusation of eating of children because saith she 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we count it not lawful to eat the bloud of unreasonable creatures If this be not perfectly home to his question I shall then proceed and alledge for my instance the known practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who as they celebrated the weekly Lords day on the first of the week in commemoration of Christs resurrection so they continued the observation of the Saterday Sabbath on the last day of the week in remembrance of the Creation of the World The custome appears in Tertullian de Monogam and was continued to the time of the Laodicean Councel which orders that not only the Law as Act. 15. 21. but the Gospel also should be read that day And the words of Balsamon are clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sabbaths were by the holy Fathers almost quite equalled to the Lords days and a great deal more to the same purpose as is elsewhere shewed in the Exposition of the fourth Commandment 4thly When § 32. he so reports my words as to conclude me to affirm that if ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholesome there cannot be too much of them This is a plain changing of sense into that which is most contrary to it For my words are plain without his glosse that if they be positively wholsom or tending to edification not contenting my self with negatively wholesom or harmlesse or with any thing lesse then positive wholsomnesse then there will be little reason to accuse them of excesse then they will rather help devotion then incumber it the fear of which was the main objection against the multitude of them 5thly When § 35. he pretends to prove all folly and vanity in the worship of God to be superstition by demanding what Superstition is but folly and vanity this is a meer paralogisme never reducible into a Logical mood and figure by supposing things to be convertible which are not as if I should prove a particular substance for example the soul of man to be a body because every body is a substance The answer would be easie by saying every body is a substance but every substance is not a body so in like manner every superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the worship of God is not superstition This was a little too grosse a Sophisme to impose it self upon the Diatribist and he now sees a small measure of subtility was sufficient to enable me for the discovering of it 6 xtly When § 34. on occasion of my speaking of that one kinde of excesse of placing more virtue in some things then belongs to them he demands what I mean by or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church and whether the purer ages of the Church after the Apostles had power to put virtue into things which they had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word I answer that I never thought of any such thing that my meaning is plain enough if he would please to see it in the end of § 45. viz. that the thing there mentioned the signe of the Crosse and the parva Evangelia and the like had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church that force or virtue in them which in the latter impurer ages they were thought to have and I wonder what difficulty there was in understanding or fault in affirming this which hath no more dangerous intimation then that the opinion or estimation of the purest ages of the Church i. e. the first and neerest to the Apostles times were in any such controversie as this very fit to be considered in their due place i. e. next after the Apostles themselves 7thly When § 30. concerning holynesse or separation to holy from common uses he promises to speak somewhat considerable and under that head tells us that there is this difference between times and places separated by God and those which are separated by men that the former require holy duties to till them up i. e. that the duties are appointed for the time or places sake but the latter are to wait upon holy duties the time or place are appointed for the duties sake I must still challenge his promise whereby he is yet our debtor of somewhat considerable For certainly prayer and fasting and sacrifices among the Jews all duties appointed by God as in stead of the last the offertorie or almes among Christians were not appointed for time or places sake holy days and holy places the weekly Sabbath and the annual day of Expiation and the tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem were never the end for which prayer c were instituted nor is it imaginable how they should when each of those duties visibly prayer and sacrifice were appointed and practised before there was any such thing as Tabernacle or Temple instituted by God Again the time or place when instituted by God himself is as truly a circumstance of worship as when instituted by man and duty is equally the substance and it can with no probability be affirmed that the substance is appointed for the circumstances sake or as he is pleased to speak to till up the circumstances any otherwise then he would say substances were created to till up accidents the body for the colors sake As
that under the New Testament Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians This no action of common life nor yet a due debt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for using 1 Cor. 7. 31. 1 Cor 9. 17. explained The authority of Augustine Chrysostome and Theophylact. 184 Sect 4. The third of Paul's going up to Jerusalem this under no precept No refusing to suffer no retarding of the Gospel The example of Christ and S. Paul at other times the testimony of Origen and confession of the Diatribist 188 Sect. 5. The fourth of more liberal almes giving Sadduces and Asidaei Righteousness Mercy Paul's advice without command 2 Cor. 8. 2. The Diatribists answer satisfied Almes the Christians sacrifice in the offertory Allowance no command A latitude of degrees in the middle rule The Apostles direction of giving as God hath prospered Of the circumstances of giving 191 Sect. 6. The fifth instance vindicated Circumstances of Prayer acknowledged free Difference between placing worship in gestures c. and pleasing God by them So in Festivals 197 Sect. 7. Of the difference betwixt a precept and a grace The proportionable return to grace is in a latitude The highest no excesse A possibility for grace to be given in vain 198 Sect. 8. My answer to a first bead of objections vindicated Prudence lost by mans own sin recoverable by grace The punishments of Adams sin are not our faults Perfection of innocence capable of degrees So perfection of the Judaical law and of the Christian So mercifulness to ability 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8. 3. Merciful as God is Merciful belongs not to the degree Gods righteousness punishes not where there is no law Intuition of reward in Christian performances no Popery Proofs of this from Scripture from the nature of Hope Faith Gratitude Not always prudent to undertake the highest Martyrdome no conceited Popish perfection yet under no precept to all S. Hieroms words examined Two notions of the word Perfection Some perfection possible in this life and yet capable of growth The law as it signifies the condition of the first Covenant is not now in force with believers Of Christs perfecting the law Every man is not bound to do what is best 1 Cor. 7. 3. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of moral good The saying of Gregory explicated 202 Sect. 9. My answer to a second sort of objection vindicated Loving God with all the heart Adam's love in innocency capable of degrees Perfect love that casts out fear to be had in this life Christ more intense in prayer at one time then another an argument that all is not sinne that is less then the highest 221 Sect. 10. My answer to the last objection of Supererogation A place in S. Cyprian vindicated from the Romanists reading Imputare An act of mercy in God that our works are rewarded Supererogation wherein it consists The Diatribists etymology of the word disproved Erogare Erogatio The Diatribists ways of Supererogating Pride Glorying More reward for eminent uncommanded excellencies superadded to duty The Diatribists charity and confession of us His censure of the Bishops unjust 223. CHAP. VII Of Christmass and other Festivals p. 231 Sect. 1. The observance which is due to the Custome of a Church The Testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine and Isidore 231 Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity 233 Sect. 3. Of Crescens coming into France and Simon Zelotes into England The difference of keeping Easter in the West and East Testimonies for our conversion in the Apostles times Before King Lucius The Diatribists suggestion disproved Britain not converted from Rome 235 Sect. 4. The keeping of Easter in the Apostles times Polycrates's Epistle to Victor The Asiatick way from Philip and John From Philip derived to Britanny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testmony of Socrates against Festivals examined 241 Sect. 5. Midwinter-day The Winter Solstice Julius's Calendar 246 Sect. 6. Festivals not Romish The primitive Churches pure from the heresies that sollicited them The Romish corruptions not fetcht from them 247 Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feast may not be abolisht among us The Diatribists mistake of the question 249 Sect. 8. The Reformation in this Kingdome No imperfection in it in point of Festivals The States joyning in it no disadvantage to the Church 252 Sect. 9. The Lutheran Churches accord in this Morneys wish The Helvetian confession Rivets custome of preaching on the day 254 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 255 Sect. 11. The profaneness objected to the Festival Casting out the Creeds 257 Sect. 12. The Diatribists change of my words his causlesse praise of himself and censure of others 259 Sect. 13. His 2d change of my words Gedeons golden Ephod not appliable to Feasts 260 Sect. 14. Strictures on his 16th § Our Festivals unfitly compared with the Romish How observation of Fèstivals may be a duty of the 5 Commandment The fourth Commandment no way contrary to Christian Festivals Veniall sinnes All mistakes not sinnes Chemnitius not producible against me 261 Sect. 15. Of riot Christian joyes no way contrary to our Festivals Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day Heathen customes cannot be objected Gods judgements vainly urged for arguments The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after Reformation of excess without abolition of the Festival Attempt to reform previous to abolition The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals Cures for diseases excisions only for desperate spreading evils No cards on Christmas day as much strictness on Christmas not more sacredness then on the Lords day No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles Neither Superstition nor hypocrisie in abstaining from cards on Christmas day 265 Sect. 16. Christmas if of the same original with Easter certainly Apostolical However of the practice of the Primitive Church All rendring of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 275 Sect. 17. The encaenia a religious feast instituted by the Jews and approved by Christ vindicated from all his exceptions Marriage feasts Religious feasts cannot be unlawfull if civill be lawfull The feast of Purim a religious feast 277 Sect. 18. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day 283 Sect. 19. Aerius's heresie that Festivals are unlawfull S. Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius's The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of the Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals 286 Sect. 20. Strictures on § 35. The author of the Constitutions a competent testifier when in accord with others Justinus's edict for Festivals reconcileable with the Apostolical usage of
or five years some one either by himself or by his missive at least that the tidings of that blessed newes should finde the way hither into this Island I shall now adde no more of this Lastly when in the setting and translating the supposed words of Eleutherius to King Lucius the Diatribist chargeth me for leaving out or not translating nuper which the Latine in my margent retained adding that I did it wisely I suppose on some designe to assist my cause and leaving others to judge why it was done this is but a calumny all this while For 1. having as he acknowledges set down the word nuper in the margent that was a fair evidence to any charitable person that there was no treachery designed the Reader for it being certainly foreseen by me that my Readers would easily understand so much Latine as the rendring of nuper would amount to I had been by any such designe engaged to conceal the Latine also the setting down that was the certain way of discovering any such supposeable treachery and so sure no artifice or master piece of wisdome which the Diatribist imputes to me but at once an act and punishment of folly such as I heartily desire may alwaies attend such enterprises But I need not such prelusorie answers as these the matter is plain to any man that hath eyes in his head My English translation was not verbum verbo yet by way of paraphrase perfectly answerable to the Latine the Latine is Suscepistis nuper miseratione divinâ in regno Brittanniae legem fidem Christi and the English is as explicite to every minute part of it that before that writing of his is not that the full paraphrase of nuper without defining what is not there defined how long or how little while agoe this was but only before the writing of Elutherius's Epistle the kingdome of Britain had received by Gods mercy the law and faith of Christ I see there is no hope of approving my self to this Diatribist If there were I should not have fallen thus causelesly under his severest discipline for such I must esteem this his suggestion and the insinuations accompanying it And yet after all this if I had done the utmost which he can suppose viz. not rendring nuper at all on purpose that this conversion of the Island might be thought to be long before the time of Lucius and Eleutherius which was above 140 years after Tiberius's decease I hope it is by this time plain by what hath here been said of our conversion by some Apostle particularly by Simon Zelotes that I should not much have abused the Reader That the faith was not first preacht in Lucius's days but revived after the death of the first planters of it I refer the Reader to learn from Sir Henry Spelman p. 12. out of our ancient records And for the truth of the passages between Eleutherius and Lucius as I never had ingaged my self so if from thence as the Diatribist pretends any inconveniences be now found consequent toward the support of the Romanists plea to our subjection it will be his not my concernment to fence himself against them having here thus farre acknowledged the truth of the story that Lucius sent to Eleutherius for some to baptize him and his people withall from hence concluding that Christianity was not here planted from the Apostles times And here let me adde in reference to his sixth § that if I should yield what here he doth that this Nation first received baptism not from any Apostle or Apostolical planter but in Lucius's days from Eleutherius Bishop of Rome it could not well be imagined how our ancient British should be found so different from the usages of Rome in the celebration of Easter c. as it is known they were before and at the time of Augustines coming hither For certainly the Western manner was conveighed to all who had their Christianity or baptisme from Rome And indeed as to the other concernment what would it avail us to prove that we had not our Christianity first from Rome in Augustines time if we be yielded to have had it first from Rome in Eleutherius's time I desire the Diatribist which even now foresaw the danger will now see to it What to this he saith viz. that the Eastern Christians which kept their Easter after the Jewish manner kept it not so in the Apostles times is neither proved to have any truth in it nor if it had would it give any account of the reason of the British retaining the Jewish and Eastern custome in case they had their baptisme from Eleutherius for as to the latter of these though this difference were granted to be of a later original then the Apostles times yet what possibility were there that the British should have the Eastern Jewish custome from Rome when the Romish was constantly the contrary or that receiving Baptisme from Rome we should have our most ancient rites from Greece quite contrary to the usages of Rome Sect. 4. The keeping of Easter in the Apostles times Polycrates 's Epistle to Victor The Asiatick way from Philip and John From Philip derived to Britanny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimonie of Socrates against Festivals examined AS for the truth of his negation § 6. that the Eastern Christians which kept their Easter after the Jewish manner kept it not so in the Apostles times It will deserve considering a while and the rather because this of Easter being certainly a Christian Festival the annual commemoration of the resurrection of Christ and that observed by the Asiaticks on any day of the week on which the quartadecima Lunae should fall and not only on the Lords day if that shall be found to be so kept by any of the Apostles themselves this will be no small prejudice to the Diatribists pretensions who will not must not allow any other festival among Christians but that of the weekly sabbath or Lords day as t is by him deduced from the fourth Commandment And accordingly in his reasoning here against it his arguments proceed not only against the Jewish manner but against the feast it self being observed in the Apostles times as will presently appear Now then for the clear trial of this negation of his on which his cause so much dependeth I appeal to the history of that question or controversie betwixt the Eastern and Western Church as it is set down with very little difference by Eusebius l. 5. and Nicephorus l. 4. And first t is Eusebius affirmation of it that all the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as from a more ancient tradition and again as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a custome long before delivered to them which considering the time wherein this question was agitated at the end of the second Century can amount to little less then Apostolical But I need not lay weight on this
a last remedy and so not proceeded to till the disease were universally spreading and obstinate against all cure for whilest it were lower then so it was still but the season of reformation From whence that the Diatribist should think fit to infer it my sense that he might accuse me that lesse or lesse generall abuses need no reformation there can be no tolerable account rendred but only this that his ears have been so accustomed to the new dialect that of exterminative reformations that he cannot think the word signifies any thing else by whomsoever it is used but that which indeed it never signifies in any propriety of speech extirpation and abolition In a word I think there is no necessity of excision till the part begin to gangrene or corrupt and spread yet I can admit of medicines long before and heartily advise timely prudent applications as soon as ever the patient begins in the least measure to be distempered His 23th § is the accusing of those that used cards on the Lords day after the evening service and the upbraiding their superstition that they will not touch cards or dice on Christmas day and the answer is sufficient that as I spake not a word of them that did thus so I never heard of any that thus made a difference betwixt Christmasse day and the Lords day but that if they used that liberty on the later they used it on the former too However if by the Diatribist it were deemed criminous in the one I should have hoped he might have been gratified by hearing it was abstained from in the other For my own part I never allowed my self the liberty on either and know not that I ever saw it used and therefore I am sure there is nothing farther to be replied to by me in that § I as heartily with a devout conscientious profitable observation of the Lords day as of any other Festivity and cannot justly fall under the Diatribists censure for any thing I have so much as intimated in this matter And this I say the rather because § 24. this is charged upon my doctrine as a crime and a part of superstition that the day hath been accounted more sacred then the Lords day and the proof brought out of my 20th § where saith he I call it most sacred and out of my 24th § where I say it hath been kept if not much more yet certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year But here is misprision in each of these The phrase most sacred § 20. doth not at all belong to the day much lesse to the preferring it before the Lords day in respect of sacrednesse but only to a Christian Festivity as that is made up of prayer praises Eucharist charity hospitality c All which being put together I hope I could not offend in styling it most sacred such as the extravagant irrational riots of men ought not to assault and pollute And for the 2d there is no such word as sacred to be found in that 24th § all that is said is that in this nation the day of the birth of Christ hath been kept if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year and this interpreted most clearly by the following words in frequenting the services of the Church in the use of the Liturgie Sermon Sncraments c. And I cannot imagine how this manner of strict observing of it can be criminous in it self or to the prejudice of the Lords day on which t is no news to say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which I make an ingredient in the strictnesse of the celebration and that which denominates it more strict is not constantly celebrated and yet sure no fault that it is constantly celebrated on Christmas day However the strictnesse of observing is one thing and the sacrednesse is another Any private fast may be more strictly observed more or more severe strictnesse of duty allotted to it then to the Lords day and yet the Lords day as set apart by the Apostles of Christ in respect of that institution and of the resurrection of Christ to the commemorating whereof it was consecrated be esteemed and lookt on as most sacred I need to say no more of that As for the ground which he pretends from his own knowledge to assigne of my thus speaking viz. that we may make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority viz. of the Church this he must very much dissemble his knowledge if he confesse not to be a mistake also For in the margent he grants that I say that the Apostles instituted the Lords day § 31. and so certainly I do though I know not in what words of Scripture that institution is set down But saith he there be other words § 57. which speak of the Lords day by the same authority appointed To which I answer that the words there used though the Lords day be by the same authority appointed belong not at all to the stating of this question and being introduced in that form though c. they are not any affirmation that the Lords day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas day but only a concession of what was asked by the Quaerist without so much as examining or inquiring into the utmost of the authority by which it stood Of this I had sufficiently exprest my sense § 31. as the Diatribists margent confesses from me viz. that the Apostles instituted the Lords day whereas in that 57th § I speak as plainly of Christmas day that it hath its authority from the institution and usage of the Vniversal Church And if when the matter is so clear and my meaning so expresse both for the one and the other I must yet be accused for the contrary and this be affirmed from the Diatribists knowledge to be my ground viz. a designe to make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority and that by him specified viz. of the Church T is certainly most visible that either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be so taken as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles instituted the Lords day and either they personally or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals the Festival of Easter being derived undoubtedly from the Apostles Philip and John Peter and Paul as hath already clearly appeared out of the difference betwixt Victor and Polycrates And other Festivals by the passages of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp i. e. by evidence of story being demonstrated to be little later though of Christmasse this do not so expressely appear to me as to be any where affirmed by me But there is yet more of this captious discourse behinde upon my saying that t is not usual to touch
imaginable Sect. 8. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day NOw followes his view of what I had said of the Lords day not instituted by Christ or God himself but by the Apostles without any mention in the New Testament of any prescription or law for the observing of it To this he is very glad to proceed hoping for some great advantage from it let us see what the success will prove And 1. saith he there want not learned men who think that Christ did designe the day But I must demand whether he can imagine that those learned men were in the right in this or have herein exprest any of their learning If he cannot think they have why doth he lose time and gain nothing by the mention of them If he can why doth he not so much as offer their grounds of thus opining when he knowes nor Scripture nor antiquity saith any thing of it and when it were as tolerable in any opposer to offer his opinion also that Christmass day was by Christ himself designed also But then 2dly saith he if the Apostles did institute it that 's more then he dare say of Christmass day And what if it be Doth that prejudge the observing of Christmass supposing it certain as I do suppose that it was either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church Suppose some feasts of the Iewes instituted by God or Moses others by the Church of the Iewes and not by Moses as the Purim and Encaenia Are not these latter as lawfully to be kept to all posterity of the Iews as those former But then 2dly the parallel that I set betwixt the Lords day and Christmass day was only this that as neither of them was found prescribed or by law commanded in Scripture so the want of such law should be no prejudice to the one more then to the other as long as by some other way it appeared of the one that it was derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church as of the other that it came immediatly from the Apostles It being evident that if the Apostles usage gave to one a divine authority the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that though not divine and the latter lawful yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former as the Encaenia were as lawful as the Passover and were obligatory also though not by the same authority By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the observing of Christmass though there should be no certainty of the Apostles instituting it Next he demands If the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ do not their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law I answer that if by institution be meant giving Law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition the predication being identical institution in this sense is prescribing or giving Law But 't is possible that institution of the Lords day by the Apostles may signifie another thing viz. that the Apostles practice assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an institution or a Law with the succeeding Church though indeed the Apostles gave no Law for it or if they did no such Law appears from them The examples of the Apostles are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law And accordingly in this sense also I consent to the Diatribist that their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law and so I shall no way contend with him in this matter Onely upon these grounds I shall demand that whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us through all ages of the Church from the times of the Apostles themselves may be acknowledged also to carry a divine impression upon it And then to omit Episcopacy which he cannot but know hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords day I shall insist onely on the feast of Easter which hath been demonstrated to be derived from the Apostles and so is an instance of all that I pretend in the point of Festivals leaving Christmass day to the equity of proportion and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it Next he proceeds to what I farther say of the no Law that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day In order to which I said that if any thing of that nature be sought there it will rather appear to belong to the annual then weekly feast of the resurrection naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. by some thought to belong to the annual day also Against these he urgeth some authorities of some ancient and modern writers which saith he do not seem to understand these places thus And though t were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies yet I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such Learned men but yielding him all he desires of both these places I must only desire him to remember that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me unlesse he can bring out of the Scripture some other places which are more apodicticall evidences of Apostolicall Law for the weekly Lords day then these are for the annual For the matter is clear all that I was there to prove was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them Sect. 19. Aërius 's herisie that Festivals are unlawfull St Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius ' s. The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of tho Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals IN the 32th § to Epiphanius's censure of Aërius as of an heretick for affirming festivals unlawfull his answer is that all is not heresie that Epiphanius calls so nor all Aërius's opinions justly censured as heretical And so indeed the Diatribist is concerned to think both in respect of this and some other interests that especially of Episcopacy But for the averting of so great a crime it would well become the accused to offer some reason for the clearing himself and not onely to have mentioned the name of Osiander the Epitomizer of the Centuriators wose words are not affirmed to belong to this particular of Festivals and if they did whose authority is sure so Incompetent to weigh with Epiphanius in setting down the sense of the ancient Church that in all reason some evidences should have been annexed to adde weight to him As it is I must not thing strange that they which transcribe that affirmation from Aërius will not allow it to be heresie