Canon of Faith from John the longest liver of the Apostles but submits to the Western custome and so subjects us to Rome which he so fears and warned me to be ware of I leave these to his resolution and come to consider what he sayes to my arguments against it 1. There is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor ground to found it on p. 244. n. 12 I said there was no ground in Scripture to found it on To which he says nouothing To this he hath three answers 1. There is small virtue in this from Scripture negative As little virtue as there is in this negative argument for me it seemes to be great for himself against me For here n. 17. he pleads thus against the institution of the Lords-day Sure the New Testament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it And again against the use of the fourth Commandment Where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment p. 263. n. 8. And once more p. 281. n. 19. Christ never reprehended the observation of the Feast of Dedication that we read of therefore he approved it But in the case in hand ad hominem I have argued strongly from Scripture negative Will worship is not commanded in Scripture therefore it is unlawful But this Festival with that of the Nativity is made a Will-worship by Papists and the Doctor ergo they are unlawfull and as such have no ground in Scripture 2. Answer The Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the Feast is some be it acknowledged a less weighty ground in Scripture for the observation This word of the Apostle in the judgement of all Interpreters hath nothing to do with his Festival The text and context are also against his gloss which makes it so light that it is not so much as some weight for the observation of it And I having said so much against this gloss in my 31 Section of Fest I wonder he should so confidently produce it here and say nothing to purpose to it in its own place All I shall say now is this that if this be the sense of it which the Doctor begs it hath not onely some but an exceeding weighty ground for the observation of his Festival a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law-giving an institution Divine which he will deny to the Lords-day and proves more then he intended not onely the observation and practice but also institution Apostolical But more of this below 3. Answ The mention of the Lords-day Rev. 1. is some farther ground if it be the annuall then there is a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days The Doctor is happy if all his suppositions might be granted him he knows the place is generally understood of the Weekly-day and what is then become of his clear evidence But hear again If it should be the weekly day yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day It is observable that in all this discourse of Festivals the Doctors great designe is to vilifie if not to nullifie the authority of the Lords day so to exalt above or equal with it his Festivals which if there were no other crime is sufficient to stir the indignation of any truly Religious man Here he does it and again presently n. 17. and afterwards often as I shall note as I pass on But this he here asserts is most incongruous Rather the weekly-day was the foundation of the annual day For first it s said Christ rose on the first day of the week often and thereupon It was designed to be the Christian Sabbath or day of Assemblies but never is it said he rose upon such a day of the moneth or year 2. If the Lords weekly day was not first instituted how came the contest between the Churches whether Easter day should be observed on the Lords-day or on the Jewish day which might and did fall on any other day of the week Tradition sayes that Peter and Paul observed the Festival on the Lords day at Rome does not this suppose the Lords-day to be instituted before the Festival of Easter Saint John and Philip it s said kept it on the Jewish day how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day And let the Doctor remember that his Mother the Church of England as she includes Easter day among the Sundayes making it no otherwise an Holy-day so she founds the Lords-day not upon the annual day but upon the fourth Commandment When she commands this prayer to be said after it Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law But the Doctor will either prove or illustrate what he said As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week As if the fast on Good-friday were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lords-day or humane constitutions were to be a foundation for a Divine institution That the Apostles did expresly repeal those Feasts n. 14. p. 244 hath not he says the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10 Let the Reader turn to the place p. 3. n. 2. and see what he saith to that text all is but this It is peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Feasts but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of the Resurrection Even from the beginning to the end of this account his designe is to slur the lustre of the Lords-day levelling it to his Festivals But first the Apostle speaks indefinitely against observation of days as religious Paulus praecepit sayes Hierom. all beside the Lords day which he had there also established as the day of collection and first of Assemblies for that collection supposes the day before designed instead of the old Sabbath as well at Galatia as among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16.1 Now concerning the collection for the Saints as I have given order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordered ordained to the Churches of Galatia even so do ye upon the first day c. Here 's an Apostolical institution for collections on the Lords day and presupposes the day before appointed in both those Churches 2. It is no wayes probable that the Apostle would cry down Jewish Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost and set up the very same again at the same time as Christian Feasts as I said above If they were abolished as parts of Ceremonial-worship how scandalous might it have been to change onely the name nay the name was not changed in other Churches and set up other Feasts in their stead as parts of Christian Worship for so they would be esteemed if the Apostle had set them up or brought them in The sestimony of Socrates the Historian he eludes by a distinction
when they are made parts of worship imposed as necessary held as efficacious as Gods own Ordidinances or more strictly exacted than Divine precepts c. Then they will prove to be Despoilings of Christians and sacrilegious being but Tradition of men in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks 4. Rational probable demonstrative discourse is not in the least averred to be deceit and beguiling which the Doctor uncharitably would have his Reader believe of me not without a secret scorn But then onely as the Apostle intended it when Reason takes upon her to dispute against Religion in Doctrine or worship upon Phylosophycal notions and carnal principles And thus his four questions are answered n. 4. and now I hope I am with his leave qualified to justifie the charitableness of my Title Page and the propriety of my select Scripture and I think no Reader found to question either of them 2. Pag 3. n. 1 The like exceptions are taken to the Scritures put in the Title Pages of the other Tracts and the Latine sentences added thereunto As first that of Matth. 15.8 9. is questioned as not commodiously affixt to the Tract of Will-worship because it speaks of their urging some inventions of their own as under obligation by Divine precept c. Which whether they did or no is under debate the contrary rather appearing in the Text being called the Commandments of men and Traditions of the Elders and falls under consideration more fully hereafter This we are sure of they made those Inventions of men Parts of the Worship of God for that is charged expresly upon them In vain do they worship me c. And in this respect this text is commodiously affixt to the Tract of Will-worship Secondly Gal. 4.9 10. is quarelled for standing before the Discourse of Christmas being restrained to Judaical Sabbaths and Feasts c. and no more applyable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of the Nativity then to the weekly of his Resurrection The text is not restrained onely to Judaical days but extends to any days made holy by men and parts of worship as those Judaical Feasts for certain were Neither can nor will the Doctor say the observation of those Feasts is absolutely unlawful forbidden by that Text as matters of Order or Times of worship for then how can be justifie his Easter c. but onely as they are accounted parts of worship now abolished But wellfare his Good will to the Lords day From the beginning to the end of his Discourse he is very careful to levil and equal the weekly Sabbath the Lords day with his Festivals when he confesses a palpable difference that the Lords day is of Apostolical and so Divine institution when his Christmass is but * An Ecclesiastical constitution pag. 294. n. 8. n. 3. Ecclesiastical Thirdly the Latine sentences cannot escape his Inquisition yet he is forced to dismiss them with a full concession of the main question between us For thus he professes We design no other worship of God upon Christmas day but such as we are sure he hath commanded at all times that of prayer and thanksgiving c. and that the incarnation of Christ was a competent reason to found the custom of commemorating of it after this manner And why should we not now shake hands and agree If this were all the controversie were ended For we have granted often that any day may upon just occasions be set apart and imployed in prayers and thanksgivings c. Will this satisfie the Doctor I doubt not For first this were to villifie and depress his Christmas Festival to any common day when prayers and thanksgivings are tendred 2. This confutes himself who makes and finds other worship of God upon that day making it an Oblation to Christ an Holy day a part of worship as great a sin to labour upon it as on the Lords day c. as was fully charged upon him in that Diatribe which how he will avoid or rather evade we shall take notice hereafter This is the sum of what he hath said to my Title Pages onely he forgot to take notice of one particular See Willw S. 1. the Reverend and learned Doctor viz. my respective Titles given to himself The Reverend and learned Doctor Hammond Doctor Hammond The Doctor all along not one word or title unbeseeming him to receive or me to give But after once or twice giving me my Name his common Title is which some think hath a little scorn in it The Diatribist but for my part This Diatribist often I pass not what he calls me I will not retaliate by calling Him as I might The Accountant c. but shall with due respects give him rather strong reason then the least ill or unbecoming language 3. Of my Preface MY Preface friendly and lovingly intended to shew him the grounds of his mistakes is not very friendly taken but rejected either as false or useless and for a brief return to it I am beseeched to reserve my discourse of causes p. 4. n. 2. till the effects shall be so visible as to call for it I am sorry that I have spent so much labor and love in vain My good will however was to be accepted and acknowledged I took it for granted as well as proved and so others think that I had shewed him his Diseases and Mistakes in the Tracts themselves My method perhaps was not so proper to shew the causes in a Preface which might better have come in a Postscript when the Disease was discovered Let him forgive me this wrong and when he is convinced of his mistakes then consider whether I have not hit upon the causes thereof That he should not discern one misadventure in those discourses is to me very strange when I can shew his acknowledgments of four at least 1. He had said Superst s 12. That Festus had put Jesus under the vulgar notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dead Heros so meaning the worship of him by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being charged by me as a criticisme strained he answers p. 63. n. 7. I shall not because I need not make it a controversie with any yet pretends to give a reason to incline him to that sense Will-wor sect 7. but how unsufficient it is see my Animadversion upon that p. 63. n. 7.2 He rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Col. 2.23 by some real matter of Piety in them or some what of Piety in them which sense he often in this Account would gladly fix upon it But fairly retracts it as false that it is but a shew of wisdom not a reality p. 111. 10. and oft elsewhere see p. 117. n. 10. and my Notes upon that place 3 He had said Will-wor s 27. The main crime that defamed the Pharisees was their proud despising of other men But here p. 171. n. 4. he sayes Hypocrisie was the Pharisees chief
32. and just now that they were interdicted Christians p. 84. n. 5. n. 8. he would not and to the last first in asking the question I beg the question which is sayes he whether every devised Rite or Ceremony not commanded of God be superstitious No such matter the question is of Vncommanded Worship not of Circumstances of Worship no nor of Rites and Ceremonies if not made parts of Worship And is it probable that the Apostle would cry down the old Ceremonies appointed by God and parts of Worship and give them leave to set up new ones of their own Head To the former part of a Jewes observing a Jewish Ceremony c. he answers as confidently by a question n. 8. What thinks be of the abstinence from strangled and blood a Jewish Ceremony and observed by Christians yet not blamed as Superstitious I say this first as it was observed by Christians so it was ordered by the Apostles who might do more then any Jew or Christian 2. It was not made now a part of Worship as before it was but onely to prevent a scandal to the weaker Jews which is evident by this besides other reasons that after the Jewes were better instructed or hardened the custome ceased And if the Doctor had a mind to plead for a Ceremony he might better have pleaded for continuance of this both for the Antiquity of it before the Law under the Law and under the first plantation of the Gospel observed by Christians many ages says the Doctor and also for the Authority of it from the Apostles themselves He cannot produce so much for his beloved Festival His other instance of the old Sabbath is just the same He hath the practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who continued the observation of it with the Lords day for some hundreds of years But I would say further 1. The Apostles did not observe the Sabbath day as now a part of Worship as afore but to take occasion to preach the Gospel at their Assemblies which they could not have on other dayes 2. The following Churches finding it in being amongst the Jewes continued it a while to gratifie them 3. If they continued it as a part of worship I would ask the Doctor whether they did well or he would justifie them seeing it was before annul'd and interdicted as he sayes 4. I must profess there is much more to be said for the observation of the old Sabbath by the Jewish Sabbatarians than can be said for any of the Doctors Festivals the Antiquity of it the Authority of it the Apostolical practice sayes the Doctor and the Churches observation of it for many ages clearly manifested in stories Whereas the Festivals especially his darling Christmas have no Apostolical Authority or Practice nor of the two first Ages of the Church that can be made appear I leave these to his consideration The 32. Section of mine p. 86. n. 9. he overlooks most of it that most concern'd him to have answered about his number of wholsome Ceremonies of the efficacy put in them by some to procure grace c. and who shall be the Judge of their number and wholesomness All this is waved but a flaw or fault is found in my words which takes him wholly up that I affirm him to say If Ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholsom there cannot be too much of them Truly he that reades the words in his 41. Section might easily be mistaken if he attend not heedfully to them thus they are Ceremonies must be few and wholsom yet if they be wholsom not onely negatively but positively not onely harmless but tending to edification for so salubrity imports then there will be little reason to accuse them of excess Would not a man at first sight take the meaning to be that which I have given If they be wholesom negatively harmlesly though not onely so but positively and tending to edification c. especially if he eyed not the parenthesis following which all know may be left out and the sense be still entire But I shall freely acknowledge my Inadvertency and beg his pardon I am sure he needs mine much more in mislating of the question so often I say not willingly as if the controversie was only Whether every Rite or Circumstance not commanded by God be Superstition n. 7. when he knows it is about Uncommanded Worship Sect. 33. This question of a competent Judge c. THe Sophisme charged upon me n. 10. will rather reflect upon himself I said what is Superstition but folly and vanity in the Worship of God In vain do they Worship me c. This is says he a parologisme supposing things to be convertible which are not every Superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the Worship of God is not Superstition Duplex superstitio perniciosa vana seu superflua Filuc Trat 24. c. 2. Foolish and vain Ceremonies or superstitious But that 's the Doctors mistake I dare maintain that every folly and vainty in the Worship of God is Superstition which I prove from the definition of Superstition Every excess in Religion of mens devising is folly as proceeding from mans Wisdom which is folly with God and vanity as wanting ground of it's performance but every folly and vanity in Religion of mens devising is an excess in Religion ergo And from his own words In this case of too many Ceremonies though any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault yet this not the fault of Superstition but of folly and vanity He was speaking of store of inordinable unfit Ceremonies in the Church of Rome are not they Superstitious yet are they also foolish and vain And when he sayes any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault how will he reconcile this with what he had said before If the excess be in taking too many Rites and Ceremonies into the Worship of God then he hastily assumes this by this it is granted Any one Ceremony if made a part of Worship as the word signifies is a Nimiety and excess in Religion and superstitious not the multitude only as was said above the Rites and Ceremonies themselves are not Superstitious but the multitude onely But now he sayes Any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault Now that cannot be if onely the multitude of Ceremonies makes them superstitious suppose ten Ceremonies all singly indifferent and lawful which of the ten is a Nimiety and a fault they are supposed all equally good or if the number onely make them Superstitious how can so many goods added together make them bad either therefore there must be some Rule in Scripture how many Ceremonies may be instituted and yet not be superstitious unless they exceed that number or else the Adding of one any one Ceremony to the Rule is a Nimiety and faulty in Superstition Let the Doctor resolve us in this case Section
addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above their power as if they gave more then they were able to spare this is a strain of the text yet three times used by the Doctor Once here exemplarily liberal above what they were well able to do And again n. 8. Willingly liberal above their power And once more p. 206. n. 12. Liberall of their own accord above their power But the words in the Original import no such thing that they were liberal much less liberal above their power but thus they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which Beza and we in English translate thus For to their power I bear record yea and beyond their power they were willing of themselves praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift c. They were willing to their power yea and beyond their power that is their will was greater then their power and beyond their power But the Dr. would have us believe they were liberal above their power and gave more then they were able which as it is a kind of contradiction so it is against the rule of Charity which all say begins at home Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self not above thy self that 's an excess in Charity But this gloss fits the Doctors opinion well that Free-will-offerings are under no command and so under no Rule But come to his answers to me I said it was answered in part by what was said afore It is not the question which is of Worship not of actions of civil life He sayes first p. 192. n. â—… An answer in part is no satisfactory answer and so this needs not to be considered But if I had listed to stand upon it this was a full answer when it was quite beside the question 2. He sayes There is a parity of reason from one act of Christian performance to another Mark how he waves the question by putting in performance instead of Worship There is no parity of reason from an act of Charity a civil performance to an act of Worship a Religious performance What ever there may be in Alms there may be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somewhat of Worship above the Law yet the Doctor sayes There may by Analogy be the same in matters of Christian Worship as in matter of charity which is one principal ground of his so many mistakes 3. But then another evasion This of works of mercy is generally defined to be in a Christian performance how warily an act of Worship set in the front of such Matt. 6.1 * See infr p. 195. n. 11 That rule seems to have a propriety to that particular time and is not a rule for all other times appointed to be exercised on the Lords day as a work of the day 1 Cor. 16.2 stiled by Paul a Sacrifice Phil. 4.18 c. But first why in a Christian performance is not an act of mercy by an Heathen an act of Worship as well as by a Christian 2. A good man a Christian is merciful to his beast is that also an act of Worship 3. Is the work of mercy Matth. 6.7 an act of Worship because it is set in the front of such why he knows that Protestants deny Fasting which is one of them to be a part of Worship but an help or circumstance of worship yet that is nearer to worship then works of mercy 4. Appointed to be exercised on the Lords day but is it not a work of any day as well 5. Stiled a Sacrifice but sure not properly but allusively as an imperate act of Piety not elicite as was said above what 's this but a Chaos of confusion to jumble the two Tables together Worship and Charity 6. But to remove all scruple he wishes that after the custome of the primitive Apostolick Church this Alms be presented to God in the Sacrament and then as certainly it will be a branch of Christian Worship and his instance shall be set to that c. But this is as weak as the former no act of Charity when ever or how ever done can properly be a branch of Worship unless he will confound the two Tables of the Law He said before it was a work of the Lords day why may not the Day as well as the Sacrament make it a branch or an act of Worship I hope all acts of mercy on the Sabbath watering a beast or pulling him out of a pit yea or visiting the sick is not thereby made an act or branch of Worship especially when that Time it self is by the Doctor made but a circumstance of Worship And now we proceed to the next To my further answers he replies first p. 193. n. 5. The question is certainly this whether ceremonies and festivals in a Church are criminous if they be not commanded by God No his conscience can tell him this is his grand and gross mistake the question is of Will-worship like to the Free-will-offerings which were parts or degrees of commanded Worship which his Ceremonies and Festivals are here again denied to be and called circumstances not acts of Worship But his alms were in the last number made certainly branches of Worship sacrifices acts of Worship What interfeering is here 2. The reason is the same of circumstances and degrees if then uncommanded degrees may be lawful uncommanded circumstances must be lawful also Still the former mistake that there is the same reason of circumstances and degrees of Worship when as degrees of Worship such were those Free-will-offerings were Worship acts and branches of Worship but so are not circumstances 3. The next is founded on the same mistakes that either alms is a branch of Worship or that there is the same reason for Worship and for Charity both which are denied and disproved 4. The same answer may serve to this Worship and Charity are ill compared But I adde the degrees of alms are generally commanded with respect to mens abilities and opportunities but so are not his Will-worship The utmost degree of mercy in those cases is not uncommanded though it cannot easily be defined for it must be resolved by abilities and necessities which is not easie to determine either how much I am bound to give without defect without excess or what is the necessity of the receiver of it as I must give according to my ability wherein we are apt to deceive our selves so I must not give to the prejudice of my self or family or others that need which yet is sometime done for vain-glory and hope to merit by Papists and others The horns of his Dilemma are easily broken n. 7. p. 194. or turn'd against the wall I say 1. His Will-worships for which he pleads uncommanded Worship are under no command to be done but under prohibition not to be done 2. I think there is no high degree of mercy not the highest that he will pitch on but it is commanded in cases aforesaid the mercy it self is under a special
man is it not fitter that the latter should give place to the former nothing can bring more glory to God then true Martrydome And what good can be greater then the greatest glory of God to call us off another way make it unlawful to aspire to the most perfect state nothing can be said but this That obedience is better then sacrifice the richest sacrifice as was said to Saul But then I would proceed to say that when ever a man hath not a sufficient call to suffer he is under some command to avoid it such as that is When they persecute you in one city fly to another c. which was practised both by Christ and Paul and others who held themselves bound to avoid it while they had possibility to escape and no direct call of God to suffer whence it will follow that if he shall offer himself to suffer when he may lawfully avoid it he sins against that command and against his owne life in the sixth Commandment The issue then will be this if God call him to suffer which he does when he precludes his escape then it is a duty and under command and so no Free-will offering If God offer him a way to escape he sins if he neglect it against more commands then one and then he is no Martyr I refer the Doctor to his own words p. 109. Of Will-worsh but he takes no notice of them I shall therefore here set them before him Pract. Gat. p. 98. What is to be said of those that rather then offer to Idols did kill themselves It will be safest to affirm that this was a fault in them And those others that offered themselves and their children to the fire and rage of persecutors unless he will help them by some instinct or incitation of God as he does Sampson which was a virtual call and command cannot be excused and scarcely deserve the name of Martyrs Affected Martyrdome is no vertue no perfection and so though it may finde pardon from God can in that respect expect no great reward from God Yet this is the Martyrdome he pleads so much for a * When it may possibly and without sin be avoided c. See pag. 96. numb 6. Voluntary Martyrdome without a command or call from God which is the Doctrine of Papists and their practice is according to it when Priests and Jesuites desperately offer themselves to death for sedition rebellion c. and call it persecution in the Magistrate and themselves accounted Martyrs And this is that which I said was the Doctrine of Papists n. 30. p. 211. which I believe all Orthodox Protestants will disclaim a voluntary affected Martyrdome But we have here a new distinction of perfection according to the Comandments There is one which is according to that is required by the Commandments Another that is allowed by the Commandments of the Gospel very well though they require it not of every man or lay it under precept and such is that of Martyrdome which he spake of before But I think I may safely say There is nothing allowed by the Commandments of the Gospel which is not also required by the Law That of requiring of it of every man is a very blinde For neither Law nor Gospel require every duty of every man or of the same man at all times He knowes affirmative precepts binde not ad semper but when such and such circumstances meet to bring him under the obligation of those commands And he knows also that there are particular commands for men in such a station or relation A command to a Minister bindes not any of his people that to a master bindes not a servant and so of the rest That of shewing mercy bindes not the poor that wants ability to exercise it Or if he have ability it bindes not where there is no object of mercy Now put it to his case of Martyrdome himself said numb 27. When either I am not competently furnished with strength from God to go through with it or have not any reason to perswade my self that I shall be so furnished then the undertaking such heights may prove treacherous c. He might have said also when I have no call from God but an offer rather to escape then it may be treacherous to undertake it for then hath he no reason to perswade himself he shall be furnished with strength to go through with it What is not of faith is sin God hath promised to give strength in trouble which he calls us to but if we will voluntarily thrust our selves into sufferings though of Martyrdome we have no promise witness Peter professing to die with his Master and rushing into danger of strength or assistance and we do not trust but tempt God Now God does not call all men or at all times p. 212. n. 31. to Martyrdome This says he is the evincing of my assertion against himself for upon that I infer therefore Martyrdome which is the highest degree of perfection is not under any command Take out but those words which is the highest degree of perfection which is proved false and see what a demonstration he hath made God calls not all men to be Martyrs therefore Martyrdom is not under command Does it not as well follow God at sometimes calls some men to be Martyrs therefore Martyrdom is then under command and then it 's a duty and no such perfection as he talks of And on the other side if any man without a call shall rush into a conceited Martyrdome it is much less an high perfection but an imperfection rather to say no worse But will it follow Martyrdome is under no command because it is not so to all or at all times when it is not under command it is no vertue or perfection and when it is a vertue or perfection it is under some command But I had like to have forgot the Doctors Sarcasme and the glory of his Martyrdome The Reformation old n. 30. or new doth not please the Dr. and therefore he flings fire and arrows at it and sayes Am I not in sport for thus he says I never thought that our English Reformation sealed by the blood of many Martyrs had lookt on Martyrdom as a conceited Popish perfection And if this be the priviledge of the present deformation to exclude Martyrdom out of the catalogue of virtues is the Martyrs and Saints out of the Kalendars if the Diatribist he now one of that triumphant Church c. n. 30. Good Sir whom doth this concern The old and new Reformation honour true Martyrs as much as Papists or your self though they do not approve of your voluntary Martyrdom which is proved both Popish and conceited and though they do not dedicate Holy-days to them and make them as holy as if not holier then the Lords day our Christian Sabbath And if you be guilty of this piece of Popery you may have free leave for me But see
he means it thus n. 15. They made no Laws for the observing of Festivals but refers the original of them to custome but the Doctor speaks onely of Apostolical practice so he sayes But first Socrates says nothing of the Apostolical practice but refers it wholly to the custome of several places and people It seemes to me sayes he as many other things were introduced by a custome in divers places so the Feast of Easter by custome in several people had a peculiar different observation Why because none of the Apostles had made any Law concerning it But sure if the Apostles did change it from a Jewish to a Christian Festival and did themselves observe it as exemplary to the Churches they did thereby at first give as good as a Law and make an institution for them to observe And I am perswaded that upon this ground of Apostolical tradition and observation came in all the Superstition in after ages in making them Holy times and parts of Divine Worship c. and they established them as a Law as Socrates said believing them to be Apostolical 2. The truth seemes to me to lie here The Apostles did often frequent the Assemblies of the Jews in the Temple upon their solemnest Festivals as a greater opportunity of fishing in a wide Sea a multitude of people as at Pentecost Acts 2. and again Acts 20 16 Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost for the same reason which custome of the Festivals continuing till the destruction of Jerusalem the Apostles did condiscend to be at them while they lived amongst them Whereupon the following Church seeing this example of their practice took it as a Rule to observe the Feasts especially the Jewish Christians in Asia being tenacious of their old customes and so kep◠the very same day the Jews did which other Churches after the Jews were grown obstinate finding such a custome of the Feast in hatred of the Jews changed into the Lords day as Augustine observes Epist 119 Can. Nicen. de Fest Pasch by Constantines perswasion But see the tenaciousness of men for Traditions of their Fathers The Doctor cares not what he can to weaken or question the Authority of the Lords day to strengthen and stablish his Easter Feast p. 245. n. 17 It will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any other evidence for the weekly Christian Sabbath or Lords day then the custome and practice Apostolical the New Testament hath no where any giving of Law conerning it But sure it will be easie for the Diatribist to manifest a palpable difference between the Lords day and his Easter out of Scriture the best Record beside what is said out of prime Antiquity For 1. We finde the Name there as a day of Christian Assemblies but not a word of Easter 2. We finde the Apostles practice and observation of it but never of Easter 3. We finde grounds in Scripture for the institution or designation of the day but nothing for Easter but rather the contrary prohibition The grounds of the weekly Christian Sabbath it 's well he will allow the Lords-day so honourable a Title he cannot say so much for his Easter Feast and some of his way would have scornfully called it Your Saint Sabbath The grounds I say are these 1. For a solemn day of rest which is a Sabbath we have the fourth Commandment morall in the judgement of its greatest enemies 2. We have it granted that the day must not be less then one in seven yea one day in seven is granted moral in the fourth Commandment by the Doctor * p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week c. himself 3. Christ in Matt. 5. came to stablish and not destroy this Law amongst the rest 4. We have Christian exercises performed on the day beside prayer and preaching and Lords Supper collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day which presupposes the day * That which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so in his 4. Quaer s 94. before designed by Christ or his Apostles All this together amounts to a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or institution And lastly the uniform observation of this day in all ages in all Churches must needs presuppose it to be a Divine Ordination Not one of all these can he truly prove applyable to his Easter Feast Away then with such unworthy comparisons But we shall meet it again ere long And yet Isaid p. 245. n. 19. and say again The observation of Easter hath better Antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical He answers The Apostolical practice being so evident there can be no doubt then the Analogy holding the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian Festival to another will certainly justifie the observation c. The question is not now of the observation of either but the Antiquity so that this was a meer evasion There are histories and traditions and ancients that speak of Easter in the second Centurie but not one word of Christmas and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it which to me is a good evidence there is none And as for Analogy from one Festival to another it holds as well thus If there can be produced neither Apostolical institution nor observation of Easter as a Christian Festival as is probably evinced above then much less is there any ground for the institution or observation of Christmas as an Holy-day But this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main business When I granted the Antiquity of some Festivals in the third or fourth Century might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman Antichristain See adhering to them The Doctor is overjoy'd n. 1. p. 247. and congratulates the unexpected success of his paper But without any cause for it wrought nothing with me being of that opinion before that Rome was not at that time Antichristian But to discover my meaning and to cool his boasting I believe the first Institutors of Festivals had a good Intention to commemorate the mercies of God bestowed on us in Christ making them onely circumstances of Worship though some Superstitions did soon after creep into the observation of them But after ages declining more and more till Antichrist got into the throne those Festivals I meant comparatively had at first nothing of that corruption which after adhered to and overwhelmed them both in their Institution and also in their observation Neither did I mean that the Festivals as they were lately observed by some in England had nothing of the Roman See as now it is corrupted having charged the observation of them by the Dr. and
are his words then he does affirm they may not be abolished by any person or Church Yes upon better reasons they may then they had for using them This were very hard to finde in any after Church that they should be wiser then the Apostles to finde greater reasons for the abolishing then they had for using them He should have said instituting them not using them for we are speaking of a power to institute and abolish And yet here he forgat himself and talkes of reasons Whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted Which word he hath warily waved all this while and pleaded onely Apostolical Practice and not Institution but let it go He therefore hasten'd to examine the present reasons of abolition of this Festival whether they were as important as those whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted viz. that of the pious and thankful Commemoration of the Birth of Christ 2. Whether the reasons for abolition were not fained those of Will-worship and Superstition c. I shall answer first to the second question The Doctor may vainly hope that he hath evidenced them to be fained but will finde them stick too really upon his Festivals in his own opinion and practice which if it be made good I shall venture to say to the first that the reasons of abolition were as and more important then of the Institution because Superstition and Will-worship are most abominable to God and the birth of Christ may be piously and thankfully commemorated upon any other day as well as this And now n. 9. was it not more policy to say no worse then piety in him to wave all my discourse concerning the power of a Church to institute Ceremonies and to take leave to pass it over untoucht Which by the Laws of disputation would not be granted him For does it not concern his Festival neerly to know whether the Authority instituting it was sufficient if not its void ipso facto If so it behoved him to manifest it having asserted that this or any Church of the like foundation is invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for its self which consequently may not without great temerity be changed and abolished by any However this being excepted to and that as I think upon very good reasons it concerned him to have given me and the Reader satisfaction herein But let us hear how he colours his tergiversation The two branches of his proposition were no way concerned in any part of my state of the question 1. That a national Church planted by the Apostles or their successors may lawfully use a Festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ c. 2. That such an usage when it hath gained a reception ought not to be declaimed against as Antichristian or laid aside by persons under authority c. For this latter there is scarce one word of it in his proposition and for the former it must necessarily be founded upon this supposition That such a Church hath unquestionable power to institute such a Ceremony such a Festival Which if it be not proved as it is meerly begged let the using or usage be never so ancient having concurrence of other Churches yet it wants Authority for the continuance of it For the Doctor must know that its one thing To use a day for the Commemorating of the birth of Christ and on it to pray to praise God c. exhorting all good Christans to partake thereof and to lay aside their ordinary labours c. and another thing to institute a day as a Religious Festival making it as sacred as the Lords day Sabbath a part of Worship and a sin to work upon that day as Papists and the Doctor do And consequently if such Superstition and Will-worship be gotten into the observation of such a day it may be declaimed against in those respects as Antichristian and laid aside by those that have power in their hands which whether they had sufficiently who laid his Festival aside I leave to the Doctor to debate it with them as not concerning me who do believe that I have sufficient Authority from the word of God I say not to abolish an usage or custome not to observe any such day as is guilty of Superstition and Will-worship But to satisfie his credulous Reader who takes all his words as an Oracle he slurs my four leaves discourse thus n. 10. I shall omit now to take notice of the infirmities which this discourse of his is as full of as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected If it were so though others judge it not so it was the easier for him to have answered his charity uses not to hide or spare my infirmities In his 8. and 9. Sections p. 252. n. 1. c. there is little of moment to our main business some jerks and squibs there are not worth taking notice of and therefore I shall as he did with much more material things of mine take leave to pass them by untoucht and proceed to the next That I proved what I said p. 255. n. 3. That the first and purest ages of the Church did not observe his Christmas is the scope of my 6 and 7. Sections of Fest 1. By disproving the Antiquity of Easter to be Apostolical by three arguments which are again applied Sect. 27. to his Christmas and the Doctor ought to have taken notice of them 2. By the utter filence of the most ancient Records of the usages of the Church for the first 200 years at least which is most improbable they would not take notice of if then in use and practise Truly to use his own words my eyes or my memory very much fail me or he hath not in any degree out of any the most Ancient Records given any one instance of any one Father that speak one word of his Christmas Festival All he pleads is but the Analogie of it with that of Easter which hath been sufficienty spoken to and will again here which might plead something though not much for the observation of it when it was once set up but nothing at all for the Institution or Antiquity of it n. 4. And therefore he finely puts it off thus The dimness or want of stories of those times makes it not so evident of this of Christmas yet the Analogy holding directly between them the argument remains as firm that the laying aside those Festivals is a separation from the Apostolick purest times But first the Doctor speaks of the dimness of the first ages which sure is a figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dimness for cimmerian Egyptian darkness The stories of those times would have been as clear for Christmas as for Easter if such a solemnity and usage had been in being in Ignatius and the next to him or in * Tertullian a man of great learning a diligent observer and recorder of the Customes and Practices of the most
yet after all this confidence see his diffidence where to place the Original of his Chrismas for thus he goes on In one of which ranks Apostles or succeeding Church though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity is to be placed Yet because we have not those evidences of the Fact which we have of Easter and others I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainty nor affirm more then what the Tratise hath shewed out of the Ancient Fathers that this Feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity Parturiunt montes c. Sure the first Antiquity was from the Apostles dayes but he dare not lay it upon them certainly Though Constant in the fourth Cent. did make orders for the observation of the Lords day and other days yet not a word of Christmas which is very strange if then in usage because of uncertainties and yet affirmed confidently it was derived from them Socrates tells us the Apostles did not settle any Laws for Festivals then not for this of the Nativity how then was it derived from the Apostles And if derived from the Apostles authority how is it not an Apostolical Institution The Doctor shifts off this by their observation which of his Christmas can never be proved Thus he shakes off also his friend the Lord Falkland who in all probability hath discovered the Original of this and other Festivals He is also silent to what I said of his reasonable Inducement for the Institution of this Festival concluding with his old mistake if I may not call it a calumny That all uncommanded performances are here again blasted by the express words of the second Commandment and Col. 2.23 Which was spoken onely of uncommanded Worship But sure to use his own words we have formerly spoken enough and too much of this arguing Concerning the Feast of Dedication I shall not need to be long p. 277. n. 1. First I said there were reasons to think it was not a Religious Festival but civil as that of Purim seems to be Est 9.21 22. For first it 's certain of this last that it was not observed with Acts and Services of Religion Sacrifices c. because those must be observed onely at Jerusalem upon the Altar there which was demolished at that time but this of purim was observed at Shusan where had they an Altar they might not offer sacrifice See supra p. 46. n. 14. p. 281. n. 20. or keep a Religious Feast by the Doctors own confession 2. It 's said they kept it as they ordered it A day of Feasting and joy and sending portions and gifts to the poor Without any mention of Religious services The like is said of the Feast of Dedication They ordered it should be kept yearly with mirth and gladness but no command or order for Sacrifices in after times the Doctor is very confident that it was a Religious Feast and would prove it from the text 1. Maccab. 4.56 They rose up early and offered Sacrifices according to the Law c. And the people fell down upon their faces worshipping and praising God c. But first the Doctor joyns things together which are distant in the text for he says n. 8. Ordaining that it should be so kept for the future from year to year So kept is not in the text as if they ordain'd it should be kept with Sacrifices as at first it was but only kept with mirth and gladness 2. Sacrifices at a Feast made not the Feast Religious there were Sacrifices offered every day at Jerusalem when they kept a civil Feast As amongst us the birth days or coronation days of our Kings were but civil Feasts to be kept with mirth and joy suppose there were any prayers or preaching on those dayes these would not make those Feasts Religious The fifth of Novemb. was commanded to be kept as a day of joy and rejoycing and prayers and preaching onely in the morning but yet I think the Doctor will not call it a Religious Feast At our private Feasts the Lord Majors day or days of the Companies Feasts they meet at Church and have prayers and preachings yet those Feasts are not called Religious Feasts but Civil 3. Those Sacrifices offered are said to be according to the Law that may be understood either with respect to the Altar now reedified where they were by Law commanded onely to offer or with respect to the kinde of offerings which were all ordered by Law May not says he burnt-offerings according to the Law approved and commanded be used in a Religious Feast No doubt they may and must if so commanded But the question is whether offerings of that kinde might not be used also in a civil Feast among the Jews and the Doctor must not beg it And if those Sacrifices were commanded by the Law they were no Free-will offerings which onely pretend to Worship which mirth and gladness the other ingredients of that Feast could not do In all this hitherto said there was no great conviction p. 279. n. 10 to prevail with me That this was a Religious Feast instituted by the Church I shall try once more to convince the Doctor that either it was not a Religious Feast or not approved by God Thus I argue To make a new kinde of Worship not commanded by God is unlawful and not approved by God But to make a Religious Feast not commanded by God is to make a new kinde of Worship ergo The Major is the Doctors own concession above The Minor is proved because a Religious Feast was and is a part of Worship as is evident in all the Feasts of Gods Institution then it follows that either they did not make the Feast of Dedication a Religious Feast or if they did they transgressed the Rule and could not be approved by God That the Doctor makes it a Religious Feast is evident by his earnest pleading for it under that notion and disclaiming it as civil If he shall say as it 's all is left to say they made it not a part of Worship but a Circumstance of worship he first makes it not a Religious Feast for which he hath so much pleaded and then hath lost his instance of this Feast to his purpose for then it was no more an Holy-day then any other day of the year And now he may consider how well he hath demonstrated the vanity of all my three Diatribees of Superstition Will-worship Festivals and the rest For he makes his Festival a Will-worship that is a Worship uncommanded and so a Religious Feast and a part of Worship and so will be found guilty of Superstition and Will-worship in observation of his Festival which is supra statutum an Addition to the word against the second and fourth Commandments and Col. 2.23 n. 11. And thus I shall assert If his Christmas Feast be answerable perfectly to this of the Dedication and hold analogy with that as he says
what he said afore That some Rites and Circumstances of time place and gesture are absolutely necessary to Religion That was his conclusion pag. 7. n. 5. If then he means by Rites and Ceremonies nothing but such Circumstances of Worship we grant the Church to be Judge of them But if he take Ceremonies for more then Circumstances new Rites of Worship or new kinds of Worship as sometimes he does I could easily name the man that is superstitious in defending and practising uncommanded Worship but shall reserve that till a fitter time I shall now meet the Doctor p. 79. n. 6. at his own weapon his own instance He supposes howing when Jesus is named in the publique Worship or when Christ or the Holy Ghost to be in it self lawful or indifferent he supposes again then this and a few other such Ceremonies may safely be used by a man without command He now demands may a few three or four be commanded by Supreme Power If they may then men may be Judges what Ceremonies are fit for number and wholesomness which is contrary to the words of the Diatribist But I demand of him if this be not a very Sophisme For first will he say bowing at the Name of Jesus is a new Worship or onely a new Circumstance of Worship if the latter it 's beside the question and improperly call'd a Ceremony 2. Will he say that any thing in it self Indifferent may be brought into the Worship of God hath the Church such a power to institute Ceremonies of what is so indifferent will not this make them quickly to be many to be burdensome and bring confusion into the Church ergo It 's indifferent he says to bow at the Name of Jesus of Christ of the Holy Ghost may the Church of this age command men to bow in publick when as often as all these three are named If so the name of God Jehovah Lord Almighty and all his Attributes are in themselves Indifferent to be bowed at when they are named May not the Church of this or the next age command her members to bow when any or all these are named what confusion would this breed yet so she may by the Doctors arguing If she may not multiply Ceremonies of that kind then it seemes his words what was before lawful and indifferent is now since it was commanded and by no other change become unlawful Let him try how he will escape I had said they abstained because they were thought not indifferent but obtruded on them as parts of Worship p. 30. n. 8. These words are either a calumnie against the Governors of the Church or else they assert what he disclaims so solemnly Neither of these is true 1. n. 9. Not a calumy against the the Church as if they thought the Ceremonies simply necessary by Divine Law though she had not commanded them This is none of my meaning whatever some might think but because the Refusers thought they were so obtruded or being obtruded were by themselves thought to be not Indifferent but parts of Worship Suppose they did erre in so thinking yet they did not abstain meerly because they were commanded which is the Doctors calumny by lawful Authority they rather thought the Authority unlawful that obtruded on them things perhaps indifferent as parts of Worship 2. Nor do I mean that being in themselves indifferent they became necessary by the Churches command and so made parts of Worship as that may possibly signifie parts of obedience to Superiors by Gods command For neither do I ever call that obedience to Superiors in the second Table a part of Worship nor ever say that the Churches command can truly make them so and necessary But I meant as before they that abstained did it upon this ground because they thought them to be made parts of Worship and so not upon his because they were commanded by Superiors n. 11. And that I may take in the next because used and abused by Papists and by them made parts of Worship It 's evident that Papists do make all or most of their Ceremonies parts of Worship Hear what favor he shews to Papists that he may lave himself from guilt Truly I cannot with truth thus affirm of the Papists that any of the Ceremonies which we use from them were ever by them accounted parts of Worship but onely as vseful wholesome Ceremonies appointed by the Church Cannot he say this of them when he knows they place the Worship of God in them Are not their Holy-days made and accounted parts of Worship Is not Caelibate and vowed Virginity Poverty c. made a part of Worship Is not the cross in Baptisme so esteemed by them Truly if the Papists do not make those Ceremonies parts of Worship our men that have borrowed them from them are the more to blame who what ever they say against it do practically make and observe some of them as parts of Worship well nigh as much as those that were instituted by Christ or his Apostles as shall appear hereafter Hence the Doctors Apology for himself by miscensuring of me is the more blameable That all his skill lies in mannaging that one fallacy putting all Ceremonies and institutions of the Church under that one ambiguous phrase of uncommanded Worship perswading himself or others that we retroduce new parts of Worship I know no fallacy here at all For that it is untrue that I put all Ceremonies under that ambiguous phrase appears by my profession often and one newly cited here from my 28. sect Some Rites and Ceremonies of Worship are rather called Circumstances of Worship time place gesture which are common Adjuncts of religious and civil affairs then parts of Worship Where it 's evident both that I take Ceremonies onely for Circumstances of Worship and also oppose them to parts of Worship And the Doctor himself hath as fully and plainly professed against all Vncommanded Worship such is all Will-devised and false imposed Worship as I have done I hope without Ambiguity Let 's hear what he asserts p. 81. n. 12. All that we say in asserting whether of Ceremonies or Festivals is no more but this that each of these not as parts of Worship but as decent attendants of it though not instituted of God have yet been lawful c. If this were all he said we might well agree But I fear the Doctors skill lies in mannaging that one fallacy under that one ambiguous phrase of Vncommanded Worship See ad p. 73. n. 10. For he does allow of some Vncommanded Worship he calls it after Will-worship not commanded Worship and makes it more acceptable and rewardable then Commanded Worship as we shall hear in due place And I shall conclude with his own words If he would really and in earnest clear himself these debates were certainly concluded Sect. 25 26 27 28 29. We acknowledge this assertion that Superstition may and doth in some Authentick Writers Sacred especially
to keep the Law that is to sin no more then he may do more then the Law required and so bâ—gin to Supererogate Upon this all the Doctors Grammatical notions vanish into nothing and I go on A Supererogating work then is certainly a work done which is more then the Law required or which in my sense is all one the doing something which the Law doth not require which said I Is a derogation from the perfection of the Law of God and layes imperfection upon it as the Doctor plainly hath done The Doctor is angry at this and answers â— 11. p. 227 1. If such works be derogatory to the Law they are not Supererogatory works but the contrary As if they might not be Supererogatory in the opinion of a Romanist and yet really derogatory to the perfection of the Law charging it with imperfection 2. His treatise he says defends not the thinking a mans self to do more then the Law requires but to do somewhat which the Law doth not require And I say again is not the doing of somewhat which the Law doth not require the doing of more then the Law requires whether the person have ever sinned or not is another thing nay is not Supererogo to lay out all and more in the Doctors gloss then it may include both as was said above But for charging the Law with imperfection the Doctor hath said it and will defend it but by no new arguments but the old repeated and before confuted And as confidently he again affirms n. 12. its possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him If I listed to be merry I might say its possible for him to do something not commanded him for it s too possible and frequent to do something forbidden him Or 2. its possible for him to do some yea many things not commanded nor forbidden him many things indifferent But more seriously the Doctor means it of voluntary oblations that is voluntary worship Will-worship that 's the subject of his discourse its possible herein for a Christian to do something not commanded him yea many things as Papists do but how lawfully is the question Yes lawfully enough in the Doctors Divinity For as in the Law so in the Gospel the Law of Christ some things are left free and uncommanded What things are so left free and uncommanded in the Law or Gospel Some civil things All indifferent things Or some Worship Of that we speak not of circumstances of Worship as hath oft been said If he assert this of Worship I shall desire no other Adversary to confute him but himself As for his Latitude and higher degrees of that Latitude not under precept enough hath been said afore The conclusion is this his doctrine of Will-worship is founded upon this Popish principle Thou a man may do not something onely but some Worship to God which he never commanded Will worship he says is voluntary Worship uncommanded Worship this is not onely lawful but commendable acceptable and more rewardable then commanded Worship and therein he and Papists do sweetly agree and why he may not agree with them in their Supererogation I yet see no reason I said again that he that does something not commanded may be said to Supererogate in respect of him who doth nothing but what is commanded as the Pharisees did p. 227. n. 13 He answers This belongs not to my notion of Supererogating Take it then in his notion Supererogo is to lay out all and more He that layes out but all intrusted with him does but erogare he then that layes out more then all is said supererogare with respect to the other and may not at least will not such a man insult over other men that do nothing but what is commanded Lord I thank thee I am not as other men c. Yea and expostulate with God himself Why have we fasted and thou regardst it not c. Isa 58. But he that thus scorns and exalts himself above other men is far from doing more herein then is commanded c. True but yet he may truly in the Doctors sense do something not commanded though not more that is all that is commanded and something more And this is enough to puff up a carnal heart partly to compensate for something done amiss and to quit scores with God as she Prov. 7.14 and partly to insult over other men of lower performances as experience tells us The Apostle indeed allowes n. 13. a glorying and rejoycing in the conscience of having done well but he never allowed or practised a glorying in doing any thing which the Law commanded not as appeared above in the instance of preaching without wages The Doctor cannot but know That a man without grace an Heathen or hypocritical Christian may do many of his works of highest perfection as give liberally to good uses keep himself single and unmarried c. But this man uses not to compare himself with others virtues but with their defects and he is so far from charity to wish or think other men better then himself that he thinkes himself better then others and thankes God there is not an honest man but himself as that proud hypocrite did I fear that all Will-worshippers that think they do more then is commanded are guilty of some pride and scorn as humble soever as they seem to be But I said further They that think they can do something not commanded do expect to finde more acceptance from God and a greater reward then they or others do for doing onely what is commanded and this is a kind of Supererogation an over-pleasing of God This first he sayes p. 228. n. 14. I willingly and expresly grant it to be my doctrine that voluntary oblations are more acceptable and wardable with God p. 229. n. 17. is nothing to the notion of the word I have professed to look more at the nature of the thing then the notion of the word and this I am sure they that do things not commanded do expect as I have said and the Doctor will confess it presently But secondly he will put in a caution to make it passable That uncommanded works can never satisfie for disobediences and that it is perfect impiety and folly to neglect duty and then to compensate by doing more then is commanded First I observe how the Doctor confounds the terms of his former distinction doing more then is commanded is here put for doing somewhat that is not commanded which is found also so used numb 13. The first of them for it is twice the crime the Doctor found in mine at the beginning But secondly the caution will not do the work For Papists some at least do not think their uncommanded works do satisfie for their own disobediences but when their own sins are pardoned as they think at least and they enabled to keep the Law then they think by uncommanded works to satisfie God for others sins
And the mischief is that they that think they can do things not commanded do usually the rather neglect the care of securing of duties but hope to compensate by doing things not commanded You make void the Commandment of God by your own Tradition and say it is corban c. But we have here the Doctors method and path-way to Heaven it is somewhat long but it could not well be shorter and the end will make amends for all the greater reward Thus it lies He that shall have observed this method uprightly eschewed evil in a strict mortifying of lusts c. in abstaining from sin and doing * Doing all that is commanded Mark that all that is commanded confirmed by authority of a Poet virtus est vitium fugere c. and whensoever he hath failed secured his retrait by an early humiliation confession begging of pardon in Christ and sincere reformation and then laboured industriously to superstruct doing of good works of the more eminent I mean uncommanded degrees of virtues I shall not doubt to encourage him to think confidently and expect from our great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more and greater acceptance I shall adde reward also then the same person could in reason expect for doing onely what is commanded I shall adde what he addes in the next p. 229. n. 15 and consider them together There is no reason to make question but that of two men which have been equal in obediences one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection the more perfect shall have the richest reward c. To all this I shall speak first in general and then to some particulars In general thus by considering how far an hypocrite may travel in this way to glory 1. He may abstain from some yea many sins wherewith some sincere Christian may be overtaken and the Doctor will not say his pious Christian can or doth abstain from all sins 2. He may do all that is commanded for the letter of the Law as Paul himself before his conversion says he was blameless and the Doctor does not say or does not mean though he say all his pious man may do universally all that is commanded 3. When he hath failed if at least he may fail he may in the Doctors language secure his retrait by an early humiliation and confession Pray ye to the Lord for me as Ahab and Juda did 4. He may beg pardon of God and that in Christ as its like Simon Magus did who desired others also to pray for him 5. He may make an outward Reformation of his failings in many things as Herod did and the Doctor will not say but his Pious Christian may fail still by infirmity in some things repented of 6. After all this he may use Austerities Fasting Watchings and other Penances for the mortifying of his lusts at least in pretence as Papists do and the Pharisees did 7. And then he may proceed to superstruct doing of good works of the more eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue for I observe none such named by the Doctor but an hypocrite may do them as give alms liberally as the Pharisees did above what the Law required If I give all my goods to the poor and have not charity supposes the ease possible I am nothing He may be frequent in Praying five or six times a day in Fastings twice or thrice a week and in other such Austerities as afore He may make himself an Eunuch undertake to profess a single life under pretence to please God better Nay he may offer himself to voluntary Martyrdome which two last are the Doctors highest perfections of all If I give my body to be burned for Religion for Christ and have not Charity Supposes that case also possible for an hypocrite to attain to May now the Dr. encourage this man to think and expect confidently more and greater acceptance and reward then another that onely hath done what is commanded And that with some failings Perhaps he will say he does not all these things uprightly or sincerely and so loses all Be it so yet this was more then the Doctors eye could discover for he cannot see his heart therefore he might encourage him still confidently to expect if not more yet some acceptance and reward if not for abstaining from so many sins and doing so many things commanded because he plaid but the hypocrite in all yet for his eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue a just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not let such high perfections go altogether unrewarded But I shall come to some particulars And first with respect to what I said last it must be supposed in this distribution of rewards that uncommanded eminent degrees of virtue Else they are but as Cyphers in Arithmetick which of themselves signifie nothing but make a figure more by conjunction and highest perfection may of themselves expect some reward or acceptance from God by whomsoever they are done though he have not done all that is commanded For if they give more acceptance and reward in conjuction with commanded virtues they must give some positive reward single and alone or joyned with lower degrees of virtue and then an hypocrite may expect some acceptance and reward from God for such eminent virtues who yet is most abominable to him 2 Though obedience to commands may expect acceptance with God and reward and glory in Heaven yet uncommanded eminent perfection carries away the prize or crown of glory But I desire to know who gave this authority to these men to distribute rewards less to obedience commanded and more to uncommanded virtues 3. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth distributes his rewards and prizes by an act of justice to the best deserving not of mercy and favour But I hope the Doctor will not say so of God though Papists are bold enough to say so 4. If this reward be not an act of justice upon merit then it must be by way of promise which is of grace or mercy For works commanded are rewarded of meer mercy Psal 62. last if uncommanded works may not plead merit none can yet Papists that make commanded works meritorious do also make uncommanded works more meritorious If then the Doctors eminent uncommanded virtues may expect a greater reward then works commanded the works of mens devising are exalted above the works of Gods commanding By what Rule not of merit or justice that the Doctor disclaims not of mercy for then they must have some promise the ground of that expectation but promise he can shew none or let us see the Patent where uncommanded virtues are promised I say not a greater but any reward at all All the promises in Scripture are made to the obedient and obedience imports a command as all threatnings are made to the disobedient which implies a prohibition And for ought I see there may be as well some eminent or lesser wickednss not under prohibition against which there is no threatning as