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
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
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
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
his 24 Chapter gives us the full debate of it in the Epistle of Polycrates to Victor This Polycrates was the eighth Bishop of Ephesus and was then 65 years old which reacheth up very high within 30 years of S. Johns time and he set down and manifested the tradition to be Apostolical expressely deducing it from two of the Apostles Philip one of the twelve which saith he died at Hierapolis and John the beloved disciple of Christ who lived and died at Ephesus adding to these Polycarp Bishop and Martyr of Smyrna and Thraseas Bishop and Martyr of Eumenia Sagaris of Laodicea Papyrius and Melito of Sardis All which saith he observed the fourteenth day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keeping exactly the Canon of faith and no way varying from it Here it is undeniably evident that the Asiatick custome was by Polycrates and all the Bishops of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consented to this Epistle of his fetcht from two of the twelve Apostles S. Philip and S. John And if that which our stories tell us of Philips being in France and sending Joseph of Arimathea and others into Britain be to be understood of Philip the Apostle as Gildas Albanicus expressely affirmes then have we a clear account of the derivation of this custome of keeping Easter in this Nation from Philip to our first Christians just as Polycrates in Asia deduces it from the same Philip. And that affords us an irrefragable instance of the observation of Christian festivals among us not only from the first plantation of Christianity among us but even from the practice of the very Apostles themselves which was the utmost that I could pretend to in this matter 8. And it is farther observable that Pope Victor of Rome though he was willing to have proceeded with greater rigor against the Asiaticks even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cut off or excommunicate all the Provinces and Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as heterodox yet never questions the truth of Polycrates's affirmations concerning his receiving the custome from those Apostles And indeed the other Bishops assembled were not for such severity but for peace and unity and charity with these fellow Christians and reprehended Victor severely for his thoughts of severity And the Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor is very considerable to this purpose who though he resolved on Victors conclusion for the keeping it on the Lords day only yet he is absolutely against excommunicating the Asiaticks upon this very ground that these Churches of God did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe the tradition of ancient or original custome and he farther tells him that the Bishops before him had never broken peace with any on occasion of this difference instancing in Polycarp who came to Rome in Anicetus's time and as Anicetus could not perswade him to leave his custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having observed it alwaies according to the practice of John the disciple of the Lord and the rest of the Apostles with whom he had conversed So neither could Polycarp perswade Anicetus to leave his way and yet they communicated one with another Here again by Irenaeus his own confession who was for the Western custome the Eastern was practised by John and the rest of the Apostles sure more then one with whom Polycarp had conversed Lastly There is no doubt all this while of that which the Western pretended for their custome that they had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Apostolical tradition saith Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning saith Nicephorus and that expressely from S. Peter the Apostle which still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian festival and all others are to be rated by that standard was observed and celebrated by the Apostles and so is the evincing of all that I need to pretend to for the vindicating of that Resolution of the Quaere concerning the Festivals of the Church What now can be invented by way of reply to this argument thus inforced I profess not to be able to foresee what he hath thought fit to offer for the proof of the contrary I shall now very briefly consider And 1. saith he there is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor any ground to found it on But to this 1. It is sufficient to answer that there is small virtue in this argument from Scripture negative 2dly That the Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast which by circumstances is applied to the feast of Easter is some be it acknowledged a lesse weighty ground in Scripture for the observation 3dly That the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. is some farther ground whether that signifie the weekly or annual Lords day If it be the annual there is then a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days and if it should be the weekly yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day which we know is to commemorate the resurrection 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 4thly If the Scripture should give us no kinde of mention of this yet seeing it hath otherwise appeared from the most ancient and undoubted records of the Church that Easter was observed by the Apostles by Peter and Paul in one manner by John and Philip in another what place of doubt or question can there be in this matter What he addes in the close of his first reason that the Apostles were so farre from instituting these as Christian feasts that they do expressely repeal them and cry them down hath not the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4. 10. His 2d proof is from Socrates the Historian saying that the Apostles were not solicitous to appoint any festival days at all therefore not this of Easter To this I answer that Socrates's words do not at all deny this to have been the practice of the Apostles only his conceit is that neither Christ nor his Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded to observe this by any law and again that they intended not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make laws of festival days referring the original of them to custome which varied in several regions as appeared to him by that difference betwixt the Asiatick and Western Christians from whence his conclusion or as in the same matter he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his conjecture was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feast of Easter among all sorts of people had a peculiar different observation from some custome because none of the Apostles had made any
and commemorate Christ on that day What could passion or interest or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have suggested more unadvisedly then this His 2d dislike and exception is that having formerly founded times or dayes designed to publike worship on the equity of the 4th Commandment I should now devolve the observation of this festival to obedience to the lawes of the Church and so reduce it as a duty to the 5th Commandment and upon this as an especial advantage he is pleased to expatiate But the matter is clear enough and was so till he had taken pains to involve it The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for Gods service generally considered and this or that particular time That God should have some times assigned for his service is of the very law of Nature and so much of morality there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly sabbath in the 4 Commandment Nay farther the 4th Commandment being given to the Iewes for the observing one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set a part one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead And accordingly I suppose it instituted by the Apostles of Christ But then as among the Jewes beside the weekly sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many other times of festivity and fasting some appointed by God himself in the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others instituted by men and yet constantly observed by Gods people and accepted by God and some approved by Christ himself and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment though not by any force of that so now still under the Gospel nothing hinders but that the Church of God by the power left to and deposited with them may ordain Christian feasts and fasts and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek sons of the Church and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worship or spontaneity but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fift Commandment As for that which he addes in this matter that we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day of seven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it for where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment and t is visible what the consequence must be in affirming it even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of the fourth Commandment 2. It is no way pertinent to the matter in hand for supposing Christians allowed six daies for their own works t is yet visible that some of these six may by the free act of particular men be used or by the power of the Christian Church be set a part to Christian uses as well as some days were not only by God himself but by the Governors of the Jewes Judas Maccabeus and others set a part for the publike service of God in the old Testament at which time t is by all confest that the fourth Commandment was in force in all parts of it A second exception I shall note in this § p. 157. when upon these words of mine concerning the possible mistake of the day that that will be pardonable in those that verily think they are not mistaken and that in them that do performe the businesse of the day as compleatly on a mistaken day as on the true the excuse of blamelesse ignorance will wash away greater errors then this he presently replies Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists doctrine of venial sins and upon that occasion is put in minde of Bellarmines defence against the peril of idolatry in the Masse in case the bread be not transubstantiated And then he askes Can any ignorance be blamelesse against the Law of God or wash away any error without the blood of Christ But to this the answer is obvious and the fallacy presently discoverable For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable sins must not be presumed to exclude the blood of Christ those sins are pardonable under the Gospel for which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was paid and such are all sins that are reconcileable with true repentance or the sincerity of a regenerate state But then 2. I am no way assured that it is a sin so much as of ignorance to mistake in the day of Christs birth every mistake is not a sin but only that which is a breach of some law and therefore I suppose it is that the Diatribist was compelled to say Can any ignorance be blamelesse against a law of God But then I professe not to know any law of God against which it is a sin though but of ignorance to mistake that day for the annual day of Christs birth which really is not the day And I now desire to be informed of which of the ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Testament this is a breach When he tells me this I shall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section and answer his instance of so weighty consideration about the very day of the Jews passeover of which he acknowledge that the very day was as strictly commanded as the businesse it self and so the error must be an error against a law whereas he as certainly knowes that this day of Christs birth is by none so much as pretended to be so commanded What remains concerning Chemnitius's charge of Superstition on Papists observation of their holy daies is all answered before it be produced by this one consideration that Chemnitius as a Lutheran is by the Diatribist confest to allow this and other Festivals For then hath he granted all that I contend for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papists 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 judgments 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 excesse 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 strictnesse on Christmass 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 WHat now followes in the 17th § and so on to the 27. is all to the head of
Riot Which I was careful to remove from this Festivity And first having disclaimed it as more intolerable in a Christian then in a Jew and that upon this account that Spiritual joyes are his eminent if not only portion under promise His answer is that these are not limited to one or twelve dayes in a year but are daily joyes every day is a Christmas to a godly heart Rejoyce in the Lord always c. But he that thus answered could not but know that the weekly Lords day is set apart for a Christian Feast dedicated particularly to these Spiritual joyes and that this was very reconcileable with the text that said once and again Rejoyce always and how then can this be opposed to an annual Festival Besides all that I had to say was that the Christian joyes should principally be Spiritual and this not as a proof of the lawfulness of Festivals but of the unlawfulnesse of riots and the Diatribists answer is wholly to that other head to which that was never designed as a medium To which I might 3dly adde that that text to the Philippians is an exhortation to rejoycing in tribulations in the saddest as well as the cheerfullest seasons and so the alwaies is to be limited by the context And then the application of it here was still so much less pertinent In the 2d place my 18th § being designed to shew how separable all riot was from this Festival by the nature of Christian dainties instruction prayer praises almes and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper none of which were capable of luxurie and Festivity and Hospitality which were clearly separable from it His answer is 1. that these two last are thus separable from riot but very hardly And I shall only demand Are the leasure and cessation from business on the Lords day experimented to be more easily separable from it Is it more ordinary for the same men to be drunk upon Christmas day then upon all or upon any one Sunday in the year And have not preachers and magistrates been as industrious to cast out this profane Spirit on the Lords day and been as unsuccessful in their indevours And shall this be any argument for the abolition of that day Next saith he the heathen usages in it almost yielded § 2. as they imply that the festival was instituted to gratify the heathen so God to shew his dislike of them hath suffered them to be attended with two extremes of true worship superstition and profaneness But to this I say 1. that the heathen usages were no way yielded § 2. but only an argument used ad homines that so affirmed 2. If there were heathen usages in it those would no way imply the Festival to have been instituted to gratifie the heathens It was instituted to the honor of Christ and the heathens were farre enough from being gratified with that and t is sufficient if the converted heathens among whom it was instituted by their converters did of themselves assume some of their Gentile customes by them thought innocent in the celebration 3dly T is great presumption and intrusion into Gods secretest Counsels to say that Gods suffering this Festival to be attended with superstition or profaneness was to shew his dislike if not detestation of it For who revealed this counsel of Gods to this Diatribist Besides how easily might this argument be retorted on the Lords day by a Jew and all the riot and unprofitableness of hearers on that day be made an evidence of Gods dislike if not detestation of the setting apart of this day to his service What impiety of any Sect would want arguments to support it if such as these might be admitted Now lastly the matter of the present debate being only that of riot what had superstition or profaneness either or both to do with that His 19th § is the accusing those who keep up and cry up the custome of the festivity yet have taken liberty to lay aside hospitality and charity not only at the time but all the year long To which it is sufficient to answer that then it seems their hospitality is not the occasion of riot to any and that is a Competent means of vindicating the festivity so farre from that part of the accusation which now we have before us But then 2dly it were perhaps worth examining what degree of truth there is in the suggestion and in what instances it is founded something like this he had once suggested before and I had then thought that it was not worthy taking notice of But now the returning of it again more solemly makes me suspect there may be somewhat in it And having no other clue to introduce me into his secrets and the charity and hospitality of those that have cast off the festivals and with it their obedience to the Church beyond those that have retained both having never been so notorious that I could take cognizance of it and the writing a Diatribe against all freewill oblations in a Christian being no vehement indication that those in whose defence it was written were very eminent in the exercise of those virtues I began to pitch upon one thing that might of late have yielded some shew of truth to his observation viz. that the condition of many mens worldly plenty hath been so changed of late that the men have been forced to abate somewhat of the degree of that charity and hospitality that formerly they had both ability and will to exercise and that these fall out to be the men that retain obedience to the Church of England and so keep up and cry up the festivals of the Church though they are not able to keep up the good cheer of it in that degree which formerly they have done And if the Diatribist was willing to take notice of this turne of the tyde and being himself one of the prosperous party that had cast off obedience and festivals but retained hospitality and charity was willing to compare himself with others who being deprived of all their revenues were not likely to hold up their hospitality then sure this is a way of answer which might soon be retorted if justice were allowed to take place and every man were reinvested in his own again In the mean those that are deprived of ability to be charitable on one side as to be occasions of riot on the other if they must be reproacht for their defects in one should not in reason be accused for excess in the other And that is all I shall reply to this answer Unlesse to the 2d part of it I reply in a word that the hospitality attendant on this Festival was never by me defined or imagined and is with no justice by him supposed to be a misers feast nor know I any the least necessity that it should be followed with a neglect of charity all the year after but rather that it be lookt on as a copy which the whole life of a Christian is to
cards or dice on Christmas day and this must adde either to our superstition or hypocrisie our superstition if they be lawful in that they forbid them on that day that God hath not forbidden them Hypocrisie if they be unlawful in abstaining then and yet using them on ther days But we shall soon be extricated from the power of this Dilemma by affirming 1. that those sports used moderately as diversions and no way abused by our inordinacy are not by any argument that ever I met with proved to be toto genere or absolutely unlawful and so that they may be used for divertisement on other days and particularly on the following days of that Festivity and yet 2dly that they are no way necessary and so that no man offends that abstains from them on all other days and employs himself better constantly From whence it is necessarily consequent also that he that hath fed on the body and blood of Christ and consecrated himself in an extraordinary manner to commemorate the mysterie of our redemption on Christmas day and agreeably thereto desires to spend it so much more strictly then other dayes as not to admit those sports which are lawful on other days to divide any part of that can never be criminous in so doing As for any thing of riot but such is not all lawful divertisement on the following days he knowes they are no way pleaded for by me and if any be guilty of them as the shame thereof is due to the offenders not to the festival which is innocent and laudable so t is too well known that the Lords day it self hath not been secured from the same unhappy adherences And it might as well be charged on that that the heathens worshipt the Sun on that day and that revelling upon it are fitter for such heathen feasts then for Christians as the Diatribist could suggest in this place that the Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time that Christmas was and that the excesses of the following dayes are services fitter for the revels of Bacchus and Saturn or the birth day of Herod then for the festivity of a spiritual Saviour All this is true and equally granted by both parties and so hath no propriety or pertinency to the dispute between us 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MY 27th § was introductory to a discourse more general to shew by what authority festivals in general and particularly this of Christmas pretends to stand in the Catholike Church which I acknowledged not to be by any institution of Christs but to have had the beginning from the Apostles or the succeeding Church To the view hereof he now proceeds and briefly sets to it to disprove each of these originals beginning first with that of the Apostles And of this he thinks he need say no more then to appeal to the same arguments which he had used against the Apostles institution of Easter § 6. viz. 1. the no mention of such institution in the Scripture 2. the expresse words of Socrates that neither Christ nor his Apostles commanded the feast of Easter to be observed But to both these it is certain that I ow no return having now paid it so punctually in the 4 h § where beside clear answers to the Diatribists arguments I added evidences undeniable that the feast of Easter was observed by the Apostles And I cannot doubt but they will be of force with him when he shall take leisure to weigh them And then if the case shall be acknowledged the same betwixt Easter Christmasse that of the resurrection this of the birth of Christ as the Diatribist seems to acknowledge in tendring no one argument more against the Apostolicalness of Christmass then he had before produced against the institution of Easter by them then it is evident my affirmation must ascend higher then it ever meant to have done and not proceed disjunctively that this feast of the nativity is derived either from the Apostles or the succeeding Church but leaving out the latter part of the partition fix upon the former that being yielded to have the same original with Easter it is certainly derived from the Apostles from whence it appears that of Easter is derived To which purpose we have already produced some evidences which may justly pretend to some force at least ad hominem to him that hath no more against this then against all other Christian festivals viz. those from the martyrdomes of Ignatius and Polycarp written by those that were present at them and so lived soon after the Apostles That of Polycarps recorded in that famous Epistle of the Church of Smyrna I have set down at large and made my inferences from it § § 33. and 34. of that treatise of Festivals To which I have here formerly added that other parallel testimony from the acts of Ignatius So that now I hope I may safely resume my former affirmation without all diffidence that other Festivals beside that of the weekly Lords day were derived to us some certainly from the Apostles others from the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles In one of which ranks though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity of Christ is to be placed yet because we have not those evidences of the fact which we have for Easter and others I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainties nor affirm more then what that treatise hath shewed out of the ancient Fathers that this feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity And against this I am sure neither Socrates nor my L. of Falkland who is joyned next to him hath suggested any thing then what was thus done by them must not in equity fare the worse for my adding the mention of a motive or incitement that might reasonably recommend it to them which is therefore presently styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew of wisdom as if all reasonable motives were to be blasted under that title as all uncommanded performances here are said to be by the express words of the 2d Commandment Col. 2. 23. But sure we have formerly spoken enough of this arguing Sect. 17. The Encaenia a religious feast instituted by the the Iewes and approved by Christ vindicated from all his exceptions Marriage feasts Religious feasts cannot be unlawful if civil be lawful The feast of Purim a religious feast THE 29th § proceeds to consider what I had said of the Encaenia among the Jewes the feast of dedication not instituted by God in the Law but in commemoration of the purging of the altar by Judas Maccabeus and yet this observed by the Jewes and approved by Christs presence at it Joh 10. 23. To this the Diatribist answers that there may be many mistakes in this And truly it matters not how many there may be as long as
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
before that edict of Iustinus at which time saith the Historian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were called Christians of all ages assembled in the Church to celebrate the nativity And to that it seems he hath no other return but his advertisement that Nicephorus saith it was Maximinus that was thus bloody Maximianus I suppose he would have said who reigned with Diocletian and then it comes to the same passe and the truth is acknowledged which soever the name were So against resolving the day of this festival to be Decemb. 25. his proofs are extraordinary 1. from the Doctor himself that it was called Midwinter day which is a fortnight before But that hath already been answered the variation being evidenced to be from the want of exactnesse in our Calendars not from any doubt of the day 2dly From the opinion of many Divines that our Lord died when he was 33 and halfyears of age or neer unto 34 as saith he the Doctor saith Qu. 1. § 10. What Divines these are that thus calculate I am not told nor how competent they are to be confronted to the censual Tables from whence S. Chrysostome fetches the day of his birth But the luck of it is that citation from the Doctor was easily consulted and on view of the place there is no more but this that Christ preacht the will of his Father three years or foure together which I thought had signified no more then for some uncertain space betwixt 3 or 4 yeears And if he were born in December and died in April what difficulty is there in this calculation or what needed the Diatribist to have cited from the Doctor the words neer 34. when he knowes there is nothing to that sense said by him The 3d thing without which his undertaking to mention many will be a faileur which may make us doubt of the truth of the calculation is the yonger date of the Arabick Codex of the Councels But when that Codex was dated he hath not told us And if it were later then I thought it may yet possibly speak truth and so that will give us no reason of doubting His last proof is that the Doctor is upon Ifs and T is probable And I heartily wish the Diatribist would but speak probably and till he doth so that he would not have such aversions to the Doctors Ifs I mean that he would use diffidence when he pretends not to demonstrate I adde nothing to his returns about the Epiphany but leave them to be judged by the §§ to which they are opposed And for the large view of the place in Chrysostome and his dispute against that Father my answer is very brief that all that I attempted to prove from Chrysostome was the due timing of the feast on the 25th of December and that being done beyond controversie I pretend not to derive other decisions from that testimonie but leave them to stand on their own basis Only when from some words of Chrysostome he at length concludes the authority of the Church in constituting and celebrating this festival in all ages much shaken I must reminde him that that Fathers words which affirm it a question at that time belong not to the Festivity it self but only to the particularity of the day whether it were to be kept on the 25th of December or on some other day and accordingly his proofs proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this is the very time And though some doubted whether this were a new or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient day of the festivity yet saith he others defended it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was old antient or original so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and is all one with Tertullians quod ab initio as that with quod ab Apostolis and from these ancient if not these first timas as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly imports and so again in Tertullian ordo ad originem recensus it hath been manifest and illustrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira from East to West that sure with him signifies all the world over And so still this dispute which side soever was in the right is founded in a supposition of the feast it self being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original and from the beginning And indeed if the first proof which he offers for it be considered t is not imaginable how he should say more to the asserting of the Apostolicalnesse both of the Festivity and the day also That this is the season saith he on which Christ was born the first demonstration is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the feast was so speedily promulgate every where ascended to so great an height flourisht adding that as Gamaliel said of the preaching of the Gospel that if it were of men it would come to nought but if of God ye cannot dissolve it lest ye be found fighters against God the same he might say confidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this day not of the Gospel as the Diatribist afterward saith he thinks he means but cannot really do so in this place against such expresse words that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing or because it is from God therefore t is not only not dissolved but every year advances and becomes more splendid and yet farther adding in the words recited by the Diatribist and by omitting the former rendred capable of being misunderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the preaching of it certainly i. e. of the day or else it can have no coherence with the feast or antecedents and whole contexture in a few years took possession of the whole world though tentmakers and fishermen unlearned and idiots brought it amongst them How farre this is now from doing prejudice to the Vniversal observation of this day in the Apostles times I leave the Reader and if he please the Diatribist also to consider Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion Strictures on some passages in it WHat now remains is by way of reply to my conclusion that the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivals of the universal Church must be lookt on as an act of affected departure from the universal Church of Christ in all ages and not only from the reformed Church of England This saith he is an heavy charge if it can be proved And for that I must now referre my self to the premisses in that treatise and in this defence nor indeed can it be reasonable that I descend to any other way of probation or vindication till this which I have used be invalidated For a conclusion being as this is deduced from the premisses what more can be required to establish the conclusion then the confirmation of the premisses And therefore as it is against all laws of Discourse for the Diatribist to confute or deny or make answer to the conclusion any