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
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
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
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
Apostles age is the first that writes about it and all he says is from certain Epistles received by Tradition n. 3. he sayes All the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day as from a more ancient Tradition and a custome long before delivered to them which says the Doctor considering the time wherein this question was agitated at the end of the second Century can amount to little less then Apostolical But more then this in the Epistle of Pollycrates to Victor he says Many Biships of Asia observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel keeping exactly the Canon of faith no way wavering from it A good while after comes Nicephorus no very credible Authour and says n. 10. Following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning and that expresly from Saint Peter the Apostle which says the Doctor most confidently still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian Festival was observed and celebrated by the Apostles c. This was spâ—ken for the practice of the Western Church whâ— kept on the Lords day but the Eastern observation might fall on any other day of the week as the Jewish Pasch did But Socrates in his time observed n. 16. That several nations had their several customes of observing Easter That is as his words are As in many other things so also the Feast of Easter by custome in every nation had a peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 private observation because none of the Apostles gave to any a Law about it Now these things hang not well together I shall propound some considerations to cool the Doctors confidence to weaken if not to break this his standard of all other Festivals and to make it more then probable that it is not Apostolicall 1. The best and onely ground he findes to pitch his Standard on is but Tradition unwritten Tradition not the least title of Scripture consequence but that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which by and by The plea is the very same with Papists for their Festivals and other Ceremonies Socrates who relates the debate between the Eastern and Western Churches and their plea on both sides from several Apostles addes But not a man of either side could produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a written demonstration of these things They all plead unwritten uncertain Tradition Whereas a standard for all Festivals should have at least one foot standing upon a written word It is too much though too ordinary for the Doctor to comply with Rome in the countenancing of unwritten Traditions 2. Traditions Apostolical do sometimes imply their written Institutions and instructions Hold the Traditions * Traditiones vocat doctrinae institutu Religionis Christianae c. Estius in locum which ye have been taught by word or our Epistle 2 Thes 2.15 which no doubt were both the same But the Doctor though in the Authorities pleaded he is content they shall use the words Apostolical Tradition often yet himself waves it and never calls his Festivals an Apostolicall Tradition but an Apostolical observation * The words of Nicephorus in the margine p. 242. n. 5. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolical Authority which is more then custome practice c. not Englished by the Doctor custome practice n. 10.17 18 19. The reason is because an Apostolical Tradition to the Churches to keep might well infer an Institution and so Divine Authority which he knew he could never prove and therefore pleads Onely the Practice Apostolical and not their commanding it by Law n. 17. But say I Apostolical Practice onely makes it more uncertain and more unable to bear his Standard because they practised many things not as Christians or to be conveyed to Christian Churches but meerly too comply with the Jewes their countrey-men to win them the better as was said above 3. p. 242. n. 5 6. Yet what is that less then an Apostolical Divine Institution which Polycrates and his fellows plead for their custome All which saith he observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel not at all transgressing but following the Canon of Faith But then it might be feared and inferred that Peter and Paul transgressed both against the Gospel and Canon of Faith in their contrary custome Let him see to that Is it not very probable that Paul who was often and long in Asia would have withstood Philip and John to their faces as he did Peter the prime Apostle in a like case Gal. 2. for judaizing and complying with the Jews in the Festival who had set up another Day in the Western Church or rather had cryed down the observation of such dayes in other Churches Rom. 14. Gal. 4. 4. If it were I say not of Apostolical Divine institution of Apostolical observation and practice as a Christian Festival would they have differed so in their Tradition of it to the Churches being guided all by the same Spirit would Philip and John observe and leave to the Eastern Churches the Jewish day and Peter and Paul the Lords day all of them jointly having appointed in all Churches a weekly day for the commemoration of the Resurrection which is also made the foundation of Easter day It 's nothing probable 5. If the Eastern observation of Easter was according to the Gospel and Canon of Faith how came it to pass that that custome was abolished as it was and the Western was established was not this to set the Churches together by the eares both of them pleading Apostolical Tradition 6. The Romish plea for their custome from Peter and Paul may reasonably be judged to be forged as their primacy of the Pope is For 1. it's most probable that Peter was never at Rome but uncertain and false Tradition so would have it as our best Divines do make it appear 2. It s most improbable that Paul who was so vehement against all observation of Feasts except the Lords day should institute or practice the same Festival and that at Rome and so build again what he had destroyed Rom. 14.6 Gal. 4. 7. It s no way credible that the Apostles all or any of them would first cry down the Festivals as Jewish and presently set it up as Christian or 2. set up an annual day for the commemoration of the Resurrection the Lords day being before set up for the same end 3. Or lay such a ground of difference to the succeeding Churches by different timeing of it Credat Judaeus apella Non ego 8. How came that contest between Victor and the Afiaticks about the day when the same difference was between him and the French and Brittain Churches No less then a threefold different observation of Easter in the Western Churches as was noted 9. Why does not the Dr. endeavour to recover the day which Philip our Apostle and first planter by some sent hither by him endowed us with and that according to the Gospel 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
ancient Church Dr. Ham. of Infant Bapt. p. 97. n. 5. Yet not one word of Christmas in the end of the second and beginning of the third Century Tertullians and Origenes time 2. The Analogy holds not in these two Festivals For first Easter had a solemne Feast of the Jews to plead either its Institution or observation but there was no Feast of the Jews at the time of his Christmas but it seems rather to be taken up in imitation of the Gentile Saturnalia a good while after 2. Easter day the day of Christs Resurrection is particularly set down and by the Asiaticks observed according to the Jewish account or Lunary year in all the four Evangelists But the day of Christs Nativity as it cannot be discovered out of Scripture so is observed according to the Romish or Solary year 3. Easter day in the Western Church observed on the Lord day may seem to carry some Antiquity in the face of it But the observing of Christmas according to the Romish year doth fairly shew it was not observed in the Apostles time nor by men that came from Jerusalem 4. The Church of England observed Easter day as a Lords day but Christmas as a peculiar Festival and therefore the Analogy is small between them Whereupon the argument is of no force That the laying aside this Festival of Christmas of Easter enough is said afore is a separation from the Apostolick and purest time When it can never be proved that it was in use in those times or some good while after The Analogy holds onely upon Supposition That if the Apostles did institute and observe Easter as a Christian Festival which is proved most improbable or uncertain they might proportionably institute and observe his Christmas which is more uncertain if not certainly false But what say we p. 256. n. 7. To the Solemnities and Festivities of Ignatius and Polycarp two Bishops that lived in the Apostles times observed from the very times of their deaths and that in compliance with other the like Festivals of the Church before them which must needs come home to observation of Festivals in the * When as these Martyrs died not till after all the Apostles many years and there is not the least mention of the Festivities of any of the Apostles till many ages after Apostles days To this I say many things 1. The Dr. pittifully and poorly begs that those Feasts were instituted in compliance with other the like Festivals of the Church before them Whereas if those were Feasts as after they were used they had better Antiquity then not onely his Christmas but his Easter also and had none before them unless he will plead St. Stephens day who was a Martyr before them long after put to attend upon Christmas day 2. If these Feasts of Ignatius which he often mentions here and after were observed so near the Apostles days as he asserts does not the Doctor 1. cast dirt in his Mothers face for abolishing those Feasts putting them out of the Calendar and separating from the Apostolick and purest times 2. Does he not also much gratifie the Church of Rome which he sometimes causlesly casts upon me as more conformable to the purest times in observation of those Festivals then his Mother the Church of England 3. Is not he himself a Separatist and Schismatick in his compliance with his Mother in his separation from the Apostolick purest times in casting off Holy-days of above fourteen hundred years standing from the very Apostles days Let him see what he will answer And I shall onely adde If the Church of England in King Edwards days in rasing out of the Calendar those Feasts did not separate from the Apostolical Universal Church nor does it follow that in laying aside his other Festivals she hath made any separation from that Church the rather because he cannot prove his Christmas Apostolical as he would believe he hath proved those Feasts of Ignatius and Polycarp n. 7. to be Oh but there 's no analogy betwixt the Church of Englands departing from Rome and the Diatribists departing from the Church of England Where it s observable that he takes the Church of England to be onely the Superiours that is the Bishops the Fathers of the Church as Romanists do those of the inferiour Clergy are none of the Church no nor the Parliament of England But if I remember aright his Superiours the Bishops were laid aside even by the King himself excluded the Lords house before his Festivals and so had no Superiority in things agitated in Parliament and then we made no Separation from our lawful superiours in this particular And so his first difference is nothing The second is this n. 8. Those things wherein the Church of England departed from the Romish opinions and practices were none of them such as this of Festivals common usages of the universal ancient primitive purest Church but innovations unduely brought in and imposed upon all Christians Yes just the same usages of the ancient primitive Church the Feasts of Ignatius and Polycarp observed near the Apostles days as he says and where is then the difference If then this be any advantage to the Romish Church n. 9. she may thank the Doctor for it who pleads so much for some Festivals to be in the Apostles days and purest times that he hath made his Mother a Schismatick in rasing them out of the Calender c. as was said above But I shall enter my protestation of discent to this proposition also It is an easie thing for the Doctors great learning to slight all that comes from others p. 257. n. 1. as worthy no reply How solidly I have proved the observation of this Festival by many among us to be superstitious is already evident and will be more ere long though the Doctor will wink and pass it all by as if he saw it not 2. That contrary extremes of Superstition and profaneness n. 2. may meet in the same person may indeed seem a wonder and very strange but is too often exemplified I have known and I believe the Doctor too some Sons of this Church superstitious to admiration who have been as profane as almost the times yielded any As if they had intended to make good that speech of Socrates cited by me Fest pag. 171. There are some who think all whoredome and drunkenness c. to be a thing indifferent that do contend for Festival dayes as for life Nor is it such an irrational thing in these times to call the same man Papist first and then Socinian For as much as some that are Papists in some opinions and practices are also Socinians in other points as might be proved That I derive Superstition from super statutum is proved false by his own confession above The rest in numb 3. hath been spoken to afore and that of the Creed and Catechisme is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I pass it by Who
day to be no sin I intended it ad bominem to the Doctor supposing and making the day to be an Holy-day and part of Worship as the Sabbath and Paschal day were wherein to mistake the day was criminous Yet let the Doctor consider how near he and others have been to sin upon the mistake of the day in the Collect for Christmas day they used to pray thus Almighty God which hast given us this day thy Son to be born of a pure Virgin c. If Christ was not born on this day as it 's very uncertain is not this a manifest untruth telling it not onely to men but to God too in their holy Prayers But enough of that The Superstition and Will-worship are the crimes that were charged upon his observation of the Festival oftentimes before and here more fully and directly but the Doctor will take no notice of it but leaps over five or six leaves together p. 264. n. 14 And mark how he excuses this omission What Superstition is charged by Chemnitius on Papists observation of their Holy-dayes is all answered before it be produced by this consideration that Chemnitius allows this and other Festivals which is all he contended for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of Papists But first though Chemnitius did allow of his Festivals yet not of his Superstition in the observation of them any more in him then in Papists 2. The Doctor hath taken upon him to be advocate for some Festivals which are in the Papists Calendar at least as well as in ours in England and pleads for them with the same arguments that they do 3. The same Superstitions charged upon Papists observation of their Holy-days are by me there charged upon some yea many amongst us in some of those particulars and the instances are all taken out of the Doctors Tract of Festivals and so intended him for one of the guilty persons but because it seems I did not name the Doctor he takes no notice of all this I shall therefore now charge home and lay it so in his way as between two walls that he cannot avoid the seeing of it unless he will tergiversari turn back or else fly over all as formerly he hath done or rather which I wish fall down before the Truth and give Glory to God But before I come to demonstrate that the Doctor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned of those two crimes I desire it may be remembred first That I having set down several Species of Superstition p. 6. s 5 c. and most of them taken out of the Doctor himself in his Tract of Superst he puts in no exception against them but seemes if silence be consent to grant them all Some at least he assents to in this discourse p. 30. n. 30. 32. 2. That here again I having shewed the several ways of the Superstition charged by Chemnitius on the observation of Holy-days by the Papists and applied them in particular to himself he neither gives consent to them by his silence or willfully declines to vindicate himself from the charge For if he could not assent unto them it concern'd him to have denied and opposed them in both the places as dangerous grounds to conclude against his own opinion and practice and had given me occasion thereby to confirm them by Reason and Testimonies of Orthodox Divines which being not by him done I might the rather take them as granted and onely borrow the propositions from him and leave him or the Reader to make up the conclusion as thus first To place more holiness in days then God hath placed in them is superstitious So Chemnitius asserts so I laid it down Superst Sect. 10. and it is generally the judgement of our Divines upon this sufficient reason because God onely can Sanctifie things or times for the Sanctifying of those that use them This is thus far yeilded by the Dr. himself That to place more holiness in them then is due to them is faulty Superst s 50. If I count it holy in that degree then I offend not implying if he did more he then offended and being there provoked by me to shew what degrees of holiness a Church or Person puts upon things or times he again waves it in his last as able to asign none and then the proposition is undeniable To place holiness or more holiness in dayes then God hath placed in them is Superstitious But the Doctor and his Symmists places holiness in days where God hath placed none and more then God hath placed in them That God hath placed no Holiness in his Festival is confessed by denying Christ or his Apostles to have instituted it Of Fest Sect. 28 77. That he places holiness in it appears by his own words when he says The day is to be esteemed above other days of the year Lords days too it seems consecrating it from common to sacred uses Ibid. s 59. that for his opinion and judgement And that in practice he placed more at least equal holiness in it with the Lords day he confesses That the day hath been observed if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year c. Sect. 24. Yea more strictly said I with more solemn services with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day on which sports were permited but no touching of Cards or Dice that day Ibid. The Assumption then is justified the Doctor does place more holiness in his Festivals then God hath placed in it Therefore he is Superstitious 2. To esteem the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God than the observation of any other day the Lords day it self and then the services done on other days is a superstitious vanity So Chemnitius So I asserted Superst s 13. to which the Doctor enters no discent or if he should I would thus confirm it because it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospel The Drs. own words in a like case Superst s 45. But the Doctor esteems the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God then c. For the observation of the day he makes it a Free-will-offering to dedicate and consecrate the day to God and asserts of the Institution of it See this account p. 197. n. 4. p. 229. n. 14. more and greater acceptance c. It is more then lawful pious in it self Sect. 77 And the services to be more acceptable to God then on other days results from his frequent assertion That such services being not commanded are the more acceptable because voluntary So he says When in the service of God a man out of a pious affection shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is to be accounted so much more
whole Church in a manner runs madding into these very great abuses But said I this is pretty untempered morter and the sowing pillows under profane mens elbows For 1. For the eating part I meant the Riotous part he knows the Apostle did abolish the Love Feasts themselves not stay to reform the great and general abuses of them 2. For the sporting part such as was much unbeseeming the Festivity of such a Saviour the Doctor will not yeild that that shall be abolished save in case onely of great and general abuses Nay 3. not for great and general abuses Till they be so great as to out-ballance the good uses and so general that the whole Church runs madding into them 4. Those abuses I said have been long so great that they have out-ballanced the good uses and so general that the whole nation hath run mad into them and yet the eating and sporting part the riot revellings was never attempted to be reformed for those too common unreformable abuses the like whereof were found in and caused the abolition of those Love-feasts as he said p. 270. n. 18. Yet see again his good will and and respect to the Lords-day thus he says I as heartily wish a devout p. 272. n. 24 conscientious profitable observation of the Lords-day as of any other Festivity c. How greatly is God and his Day beholden to his liberality He says not I could wish the Festival days were as devoutly c. observed as the Lords-day that had prefer'd it a little as the standard of observation of Holy-days But his way depresses it below his Festivals and makes them as he did Easter above p. 243. the standard of devotion to the Lords-day And it 's very like his practice in observation of the Days was answerable for he told us of Christmas day That it was observed with much more at least as strictly as any Lords-day in the year Equal strictness was too much but more is more unequal and unjust This he would evade by interpreting the words by those which follow In frequenting the services of the Church in use of the Liturgy Sermon Sacraments c. without prejudice to the Lords-day on which the Lords Supper was not constantly celebrated But this confesses the fact that besides all that pompous shew in Cathedrals of Vestments and Musick c. the * The Sacrament of the Lords Supper I make an ingredient in the strictness of the Celebration of of the Festivity numb 27. pag. 172. Lords Supper which he knows was anciently celebrated every Lords-day and somewhere oftner should be enjoyned strictly to be celebrated on Christmas day and was by some so observed and not on the Lords-day This imported some greater Holiness and Honour to that day above the Lords-day and we then might have wished as heartily as the Doctor does now that the Lords day might have been kept as devoutly c. as the Festival day and fit it was it should have had some preheminence as being of Divine Institution which his Festival had not The Apostolical Institution of the Lords-day was I thought granted by the Doctor Fest Sect. 31. and Apostolical Institutions to be Divine was also asserted Quer. 1. s 22. p. 273. n. 30. Yet how willingly would he and how subtlely does he retract what he had granted to make either the Lords-day equally Ecclesiastical with his Festival or his Festival equally Apostolical with the Lords-day For I having charged him to assert Sect. 57. The Lords-day to be by the same authority appointed viz. of the Church See how he shuffles to avoid it first I did grant it though I know not in what words of Scripture that Institution of the Lords day is set down Was he not then too rash to acknowledge what he could not by Scripture some way make out He pleads Infant Baptism to be the institution of Christ of Apostolical Practice though he cannot tell where to find either of them in Scripture He might have gratified the Lords-day with the same allowance especially having the mention of the Lords-day there and observation of it by the Apostles which presupposes an Institution which the other wants 2. He takes off the objection from s 57. thus p. 273. n. 30. Those words there used Though the Lords-day be by the same authority appointed do not belong to the stating of the question and no affirmation that the Lords-day is not instituted by any higher authority then christmas-Christmas-day c. Let the Reader turn to the place and judge He had said The same Church or any other authority equal to that obliges c. Then follows And though the Lords day be by the same Authority appointed that must needs be the Church which obliges c. 3. But he goes on and says He is confessed in my Margent to have said the Apostles instituted the Lords day and he speaks as plainly Sect. 57. of Christmas day that it hath it's Institution and usage from the universal Church But I ask if he equivocate not with us does not this put a plain difference between the Institution of the Lords-day and Christmas-day the one Apostolical the other Ecclesiastical or else he must make them both of the same Authority and was not that his designe without any calumny Here yet more 4. Either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be taken so 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 successours used and delivered down the other Festivals of Easter c. But this is a miserable prevarication For 1. What means he by the Church of the * See p. 39. n. 4. Universal Church including the Apostles chief pastors thereof or the succeeding Churches with their Governors Apostles which instituted the Lords-day either the Apostles themselves as it 's usual with some to call the Rulers the Bishops onely the Church and then it is of Divine Institution and so differs sufficiently from Institutions of the succeeding Church or Rulers Or the Church without or with the Apostles but he cannot shew any such power in the Church to institute Ceremonies as parts of Worship without them or with them neither then could it be called an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical rather if the Apostles were not considered as Apostles but as Governors of the Church and so not of Divine Institution 2. Yet how doubtfully he speakes of his Christmas Either they personally or their Successours used and delivered down the other Festivals If not they personally but their successours then behold a different authority again they personally instituted the Lords-day but not his Christmas then they are not both by the same authority appointed 3 Yet more warily They or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals He should have
sorts of worship even now partake equally of the nature of the genus Indeed in true construction of God false worship is no worship of him In vain do they worship me yet they worshipped though The Doctor may consider his Logick or Divinity here which he often jears me for hereafter But ex abundanti if the Doctor will understand the question not of Circumstances but of Ceremonies added to the worship of God and thereby say some made sorts or parts of worship I have I suppose proved that he with others does make some Ceremonies as Festivals c. not Circumstances but sorts and new kindes of worship the charge whereof he never goes about to remove It will be needless now to follow him in prosecuting his absurd inferences having removed the Antecedent whence they must proceed that I do not mean it of Circumstances unprescited but of uncommanded worship yet some things deserve to be taken notice of and some questions answered As 1. For prayer p. 12. n. 17. What hath the Rule of Scripture prescribed concerning the time of prayer as morning evening and that both positively and exclusively If so then by the standard of this Diatribist this Diatribist as this Publican Davids or Daniels praying three times a day must be criminous abominable c. and so he goes on with absurdities upon absurdities But whom do they fall upon but upon himself who knowes I mean it not of Circumstances but onely of uncommanded worship and yet goes on to scornful language enough If he cannot produce any such Scriture then is my Censor the guilty person the very Dogmatizer that teacheth for Doctrines or commandments of God his own Dictates and the doing so I cannot resist to be a Nimiety but not of Religion c. I will not recriminate let the Reader judge p. 13. n. 18. who deserves the name of Censor or Dictator in Religion most the Doctor or I. A second question is How many set dayes to be consecrated to the worship of God for Fasting or Prayer every week or year hath the rule of worship prescribed law or Gospel His answer to those will involve him in intricacies enough I answer clearly 1. For every week ordinarily but one day in seven extraordinary are left to Christian liberty and occasions 2. Both by Law and Gospel one day in a week By the Law in the fourth Commandment requiring one and but one in seven and by the Gospel designing onely one the Lords day as an holy day and a part of worship all other Jewish days being voided by the Gospel 3. By what words of the New Testament is the weekly observation of the Lords day commanded I answer for the number one in seven the fourth Commandment resolves it for the particular day the first Apostolical Institution which he hath oft confessed to be of Divine obligation 4. The observing of other dayes as Easter and Pentecost with the other Festivals if made parts of worship are expresly forbidden Gal. 4. If as Circumstances of worship onely they are besides the question And note this by the way that it 's no way probable the Apostle would cry down the Feast of the Passover and set up Easter in it's stead or Pentecost and set up Whitsuntide as parts of Worship I say for so they are by some made and accounted He that will resolve these questions any otherwise will finde himself involved in intricacies enough as I have elsewhere shewed His other demands p. 14. n. 19 20 21. concerning gestures in Prayer in Fasting in Alms-giving what proportions or degrees as also duties in the second Table c. they are all beside the question the three first as being but Circumstances of worship the last as being also no worship at all of which our question is But having thus digressed to give him satisfaction if he will take it we now return to consider what is said to my proofs of this proposition That a man may be to Religious or exceed in Religion The first is If addition may be made to the Rule of Religion then a man may be too Religious the consequence is proved because Addition to the Rule is excess in Religion the Antecedent from Deut. 4.2 where all Additions to Gods Commands are forbidden what sayes he to this He n. 22 23. sayes I prove Idem per Idem absurd enough if it were true but he must be reminded that the question was whether a man might be too Religious which he denied and after my explication of it by distinctions I proved by this argument afore which whether it be to prove idem per idem n. 24. let Logicians judge As for the matter he sayes The major is false in stead of clear If it be false it is in his sense and not in mine and if not clear it is by his obscuring it taking Addition to the Rule of worship for adding some Circumstance of worship which I meant for Addition of worship it self and he confesses That he indeed that introduces any new part of Divine worship is a presumptuous assumer doth more then be should because that which he should not do Just the same that I maintain Let him say He is too bold that doth so I and others say he exceeds in Religion and is too Religious presumption in the worship of God by adding worship to it being an excess But my Assumption is also questioned upon the same willful mistake I fear and my Scripture called to the bar Deut. 4 2. Doth he that prostrates himself in prayer adde to the word of God p. 15. n. 26. then sure he that walks in the garden doth so too c. How oft shall he be told we speak of adding uncommanded worship not of observing Circumstances of time place gestures in commanded worship But let us hear his learned gloss upon this Scripture The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God not to make any change in Gods commands p. 16. n. 26. either to pretend more liberties or fewer obligations or again more obligations and fewer liberties but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts That is his precepts concerning his worship as well as other duties of common life That is if I might gloss it neither to adde to nor detract from his commands of worship but to perform uniform obedience to God c. which is the very thing I have so long pleaded for My second proof was from the School-man who makes Religion a moral virtue standing between too extreams Superstition in the excess and Profaneness or no Religion in the defect This sure is plain and easie but not to the Doctor He grants the two extreams On the one side superstition on the other irreligion Then say I he grants an excess in Religion called Superstition c. But see what a dust he makes to cloud the business Superstition is of two sorts 1. The
in all his Ordinances c. I spare to produce any more of our Divines and return to the Doctor He says 1. Thou shalt not take the Name c. is undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self 2. Swearing simply is not reduced to this Commandment I demand then to what Commandment was common rash ordinary swearing reduced or were the Jewes indulged swearing as some of the Fathers seem to hold and to swear by the creatures also The Law Deut. 6.13 c. Thou shalt swear by his Name imports two things 1. That swearing there was not meant of Ordinary swearing in common discourse but upon just occasions before a Magistrate c. 2. That when they did swear they must swear by the Name of God that is by God himself and no other creature or thing That Law of Moses was not a permission as the Doctor calls it but a precept What then does the Doctor mean by swearing simply taken c. That it was sometimes lawful to swear upon just occasions That 's allowed also in the Gospel our Saviour came not to void that Law or that * See p. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before simple swearing either without perjury or ordinarily by the Name of God was permitted the * Seep 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before Jewes by Moses This I suppose he will not say Yet faintly sayes the contrary Perhaps foolish wanton sure prophane blasphemous using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden by reduction Is it but perhaps foolish and wanton using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden It 's well he will yield that profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name is there forbidden Yet I would be bold to ask my Catechist one question more How can I say not foolish and wanton profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name be forbidden in that Commandment so much as by reduction if the taking Gods Name in vain be undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self Cannot men profane and blaspheme Gods Name but onely when they forswear themselves or have foolish and wanton using Gods Name by common swearing any thing to do with perjury I would but propound this argument To use the Name of God unreverently was ever a Sin against some moral Law but to use the Name of God foolishly wantonly much more profanely blasphemously is to use the Name of God unreverently and vainly ergo If against a Moral-law I ask again Against which Commandment if not against the third To shut up this the Doctor sayes Pract. Cat. p. 121. Swearing by other inferior things are now utterly unlawful What now onely were they not so in the Old-law It seemes not by the Doctor for he sayes this is something that Christ hath added to perfect the Law A Christian must not use any of those Oaths Belike a Jew might But why not a Christian now Hear his reason Because every of these are Creatures of God whose whole being consists in reference to him not to be subjected to their lust to be tost defamed by their unnecessary oaths Will not the same reason serve against the Jewes swearing by inferior Creatures were they not then the Creatures of God and the rest Why might not the Doctor have given this reason because it is a taking of Gods Name in vain which is much made known by the Creatures and against the Commandment which requires that when men do swear they swear onely by his Name But these would have marred his new gloss I leave it to him And now we are come to consider the subject of the fourth Commandment the right time his own appointed day Which he does not cannot deny for he hath granted it elsewhere but yet hath somewhat to say p. 44. n. 6. 1. Sure not so as to prohibit all others there were other Fast and Feasts appointed besides the weekly rest c. 'T is true but then they were of Gods own appointment who may dispense with his own Lawes and if appointed by men they were but Circumstances not parts of Worship as the Doctor confesses But I was speaking of Worship he knows In Religion or Worship of God four things are considerable the last whereof is a right Time his own appointed Day viz. as a part of Worship and so all other Days are forbidden But then secondly he hath another elusion Under the New Testament the first day of the week certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed c. This will prove the Doctors mistake common to him with others That the fourth Commandment prescribed nothing but the seventh or last day of the week Which if it be true the fourth Commandment is as fully void as that Commandment which prescribed the seventh year Sabbath or any other particular Holy-day The Doctor himself hath granted that the fourth commandment requires that we give God not less then one day in seven which if it be true the principal matter of the fourth Commandment was not that seventh day for that is void sayes he say all but one day in seven but still of Divine appointment as being a part of Worship The Lords day then being one of seven and confessedly of Divine Institution by the Apostles whose appointments were Divine There is no asking why the Apostles should not either they or their successors institute other dayes as parts of Worship that must be minded the reason is because the Apostles had Divine Authority to institute the Lords day according to the fourth Commandment one day of seven but neither they much less their successors can produce any Commission to institute other dayes I say still as parts of Worship if as Circumstances onely of Worship it is nothing to the purpose as I have often said And now for all that is said the Subjects of the four first Commandments are distinct and clear as I have propounded them and will be a ground sufficient to build that on which is intended p. 44. n. 7. That Superstition may extend to the whole first Table when there is a nimiety or excess in any one of them To the further confirming whereof I now proceed But first the Doctor is willing to expose me to the scorn of all Readers for want of Ingenuity or Charity to make the best construction of my words He sayes n. 8. to perswade that assertion afore he commends one observation to us but such as I think never slipt from any man before him Surely the Doctor hath met with some Errata's in some Authors Printed which are as unreasonable or as much non-sense as these of mine are He might have said either it may be the Printers fault or some Inadvertency in the
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
some others with little less if not the same Superstition and Will-worship besides the Riot with them at Rome And however the Doctor say p. 248. n. 3. That nothing could be more unjust and improbable at once then what is suggested of corruptions in the most ancient primitive Church Yet himself is more unjust in straining and misconstruing my words For I spake not of the primitive Apostolical Church but of some ages after wherein I supposed those Festivals were invented suppose in the third or fourth Century and it were too easie to prove that corruptions crept into the Churches both in Doctrine and Worship in those ages though more in after ages And though its true the Governors of the Church did oppose all fundamentall errours n. 4. against the * Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbu lentarum personarum scandala devitanda improbare non audeo August Epist 1 9. p. 249. n. 7. Natures and Person of Christ c. as the Apostles had done yet corruptions in Worship might and did creep in Good men being loath to oppose them thinking them errours that would increase piety as the Dr. Faulk observed And though the Church did oppose and censure corruptions in Doctrine and Worship as she was able yet had she in all times some undutiful Sons that corrupted both and of their Errours I meant the Church of Rome and the Romish Religion as distinguished from the Reformed is a bundle And what great advantage thereby I have given to Papists by this Affirmation I see not For this is not at all an agnition that the most accused Romish practices now adays are the same which were delivered to them from the primitive Church They were not delivered to them by the †The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Church The Fathers in them declined from the simplicity of the Gospel Doctor Pulk Rejoyn'd to Mart. ar 1. see also a. 3. Church of any age much less by the Primitive but they like flies fell upon and followed the corruptions of former times and like Spiders suckt poison out of sweet flowers If the Doctor enter his discent to this I am sure many as true Sons of the Church of England as himself have said as much and will subscribe their Assent unto it Sure I am he hath given them much more advantage against the true Church of England in justifying their Superstition and Will-worship in their Festivals by his Pen and Practice as will appear ere we part The next debate p. 249. n. 1. in order should be about the power of a Church universal or partiular to constitute ceremonies for it self as it shall judge most useful c. and in special to constitute Holy-days and Festivals The Doctor let fall those words That this Anglicaene Church was invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for it self which may not without temerity be changed or abolished by any To this I put in a demur and desired to see it proved as tending much to the decision of the present controversie To which end after some explication to state the question right I gave in some arguments for the Negative All which the Doctor will not touch with one of his fingers but wisely leaps over four leaves of mine together but goes on to beg the question in three particulars 1. n. 2. That this Church of ours was first planted by some either Apostle or Apostolical man which cannot easily be proved 2. n. 3. That the Feast of Christmas was set up that 's an Institution but corrected or celebrated by those that first planted the Faith here i. e. some Apostle or Apostolical person which is more improbable 3. That what was by so good authority introduced having no equal reason to supersede it may not without temerity now be abolisht by any c. And this is the main question which being founded upon the two other unproved suppositions falls together with them Yet the Doctor will prove this last by induction Not by any other persons Pope p. 250. n. 4. or Consiscory because none hath power over a Church founded by the Apostles and not subjected to any But this supposes it founded by the Apostles and that that onely makes a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her own supreme head whereas if she were planted neither by an Apostle nor Apostolical man but by an ordinary Minister she was free from subjection to any other head Not says he by the Church it self What may not the Church it self alter her own Institutions are her Canons unreversible No because it cannot be now supposed to have any such persons in it as may be fit to compare with the first founders of it But then the Feast of Easter on the Jewish day might not by the after Church be abolished as it was because no such persons as John and Philip could be supposed there And besides it would make all the Apostles observations unchangeable and Divine yet there 's one help left Not without some greater reason for the changing and abolishing then they may appear to have had for the using of it This will come again in hypothesi to be considered I shall onely ask now what better reason had Constantine to change the Jewish day to the Lords day when the Asian Churches had the Gospel and Canon of Faith to found their custome on But see the Application of his discourse 1. I granted the English to be subject to no forrain power n. 5. he demands Whether it be subordinate to it 's own Sons or to any but the legal Fathers of it and then goes on with his scornful language sufficiently To which I shall give no other answer but this to demand whether it be subordinate to its own Fathers the Bishops for them he means and the reason why I ask it is because he said even now That which was by so good Authority introduced as his Christmas he says was by some Apostle c. may not without temerity be abolished by any not by any person not by the Church it self for reasons there given unless he will say his Bishops are persons fit to compare with the first Founders otherwise neither Sons nor Fathers might change or abolish it But I question'd the unquestionable power of the Church to institute Ceremonies and to make them unchangeable n. 6. The Doctor complains of change made in his inference he never assirmed of those Ceremonies once instituted that they might not upon good reasons be changed and abolished His words are may not be changed and abolished by any Of Fest s 9. and he n. 4 not by any person not by the Church it self by the same power which instituted them But if it be impossible to finde the same or equal power in the Church with them that instituted them it cannot be supposed to have any such persons in it fit to compare with the first Founders
they are that in these sad and erroneous times do stand up against all the Sects and Heresies p. 259. n. 4. is evident enough though I had said nothing and how little those of the Doctors parties do appear to oppose them is clear enough partly because they are willing to put that burthen upon those whom they esteem their enemies and partly because they preach the same Doctrines of Arminius and Papists which themselves do hold and publish But if the Reader will see the Preface to the Doctors Practical Catechisme in the first Impressions This Diatribist as this Publicane n. 5. he will finde a Pharisee could not have said more in his solemnest magnificat then the Doctor hath suffered to be said of himself It may be he was sensible of it and therefore hath wisely left it out in his last Impression And how he slights and undervalues both the learning and persons of his Adversaries hath been shewed above and may again ere long But it seems the touch of Arminianisme hath enfired the Doctors zeal whereof he is as guilty as any I know witness his Catechisme and his Fundamentals I ask in a word Durst the Doctor have broached such Doctrine in his Prelates time in K. James his dayes or beginning of King Charles We see how dangerous a thing Toleration is Yet if we speak of pride what hath an humble Publican to do with an high flown Arminian who dare answer the Apostles quis te discrevit with an ego me decerno And when you hear men plead so much for Free-will and Free-will offerings and uncommanded perfection above both Law and Gospel and tell us confidently they may and do expect a greater reward for uncommanded virtues then for commanded duties are not such men almost as high as Papists and Jesuites who dare say to God He should be unjust if he do not give eternal life n. 5. to their good works But to vent his anger the Doctor charges me with two palpable untruths first that I say absolutely that Festivals are forbidden by the second and fourth Commandment when I onely say If they be made parts of Worship as holy as the Lords day c. Then 2. that I think grace may not be received in vain When upon his own confession I meant that God does not give it onely to incline and leave men free to use it or not to use it see ad p. 199. n. 6. and p. 200. n. 9. And having done this he charges himself with two commonly reputed errours 1. To favour slavish fear which most Divines condemn 2. To favour mercenary obedience which natural men have disallowed as less ingenuous and our Saviour checked some of his followers for Ye seek me because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled See above ad p. 26. n. 20. of the first and ad pag. 207. numb 15. of the second I am again charged unjustly with change of his words p. 260. n. 1. upon a designe He said The solemnity hath no other design but to teach us what we have received from God and assist us to render a pious acknowledgement of it c. which I interpret of the designe in the first Institutors of this service Surely if we will speak rationally and properly the Solemnity it self is not capable of having designes it must then be in the first Institutors or second observers And if so the example of Gideons golden Ephod or his designe in setting it up is parallel enough with his case of Festivals Their designes equally in appearance good the issue equally bad both have proved snares in after-times n. 3. From whence it followes not as he infers That every Festival designed as a publick pious acknowledgement c. is to be looked at as a snare to all the people of God but that in the service of God no plausible designe can priviledge an humane Institution from being a snare to Gods people being made parts of Worship c. as in time Gideons Ephod proved and his Festivals also amongst Papists as I there said And sure for all his Logical notions examples are so far argumentative But how then could he have given a lash to the Lords day if he had not thus Syllogized n. 4. For then indeed the Lords day which is supposed to be designed for those good ends must upon the same account be abolisht also Upon what account because it 's supposed to be of the same Institution with his Festival this he will assert anon Or because it may by some be abused to Superstition as his Ephod was This I suppose he intends As if the abuse of an Ordinance of God were to be parallel'd with the like abuse of an Ordinance of man All Gods own Ordinances may be abused to Superstition but I hope the Doctor will grant another remedy to them then abolition But humane Institutions if they may at all be admitted into the Worship of God if they prove snares to the people of God deserve no other remedy then the brazen Serpent and Gideons Ephod found a total abolition The Doctors inference therefore upon the Lords day proceeds upon his supposition that it's Authority is the same with his Festivals or else if the one the Lords day be of Divine and the other his Festival of humane Institution the one for such abuses must be abolished the other onely purged from such abuses We are now coming to make good the charge of Superstition and Will-worship upon the late observation of his Festival p. 261. n. 1. which the Doctor hath no mind to meddle with but pleads his largeness on these subjects already to ease himself of the trouble and as he pretends his Reader also of an ungrateful penance When as I dare say nothing would have been more grateful to many of his Readers then that he had clearly washed his hands of this charge or acknowledged the truth of his guilt And now I see the reason in part why he waved that necessary debate of the power of the Church to institute Ceremonies such as his Festivals are pleaded to be In my 9. Sect. of Fest I propounded and stated the question as knowing that it would be of great use in the following parts of this discourse but he lays it aside and will by no means be brought into the list of this debate See supra ad p. 249. n. 1. His first argument to free the observers from appearance of Will-worship was this They observe this usage in obedience to the Laws of the Church I answered that he ought to have proved first that they which instituted the Festival had a lawful power to do it else Papists may use the same argument for their Holy-days n. 3. c. Now here his answer 1. My not proving of this was founded in my supposing it that as Magistrates in general so Governors of a Church are invested with power to institute Circumstances of Worship c. But here
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
a Religious Feast Truly he must be very partial whom this will convince All these may be found in a civil Feast A day of rest from ordinary labours An assembly at the Common Halls or places of meeting or places of the vulgars recreations A day of Feasting and gladness c. Onely one thing the Doctor would insinuate which certainly was not at Shuphan portions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as in a Sacrifical Feast Which Sacrifices might be onely at Jerusalem This he did to make it seem a Religious Feast which had it been done would not make the Feast Religious as was said above 2. If it was a Religious Feast others answer Mordecai was a Prophet and so directed by God to make it so which the Doctors Festival wants If that Feast of Purim had not such Divine Authority and yet made a Religious Feast as the Doctor will needs have it I dare still say they went beyond their commission and the Doctor shall justifie my assertion who condemnes all new sorts of Worship as unlawful Concerning the Institution of the Lords-day to be Divine whether by Christ himself or the Apostles enough hath been said in another place and I shall not renew that debate at this time And how odious the frequent comparisons if not preferment of his Festivals with the Lords-day were hath been manifested above The Doctor cannot yet forbear but he must either level the Lords-day to his Festival or advance his Festivals into the same Chair of Estate with the Lords-day for thus he says p. 284. n. 5. He teaches his Catechumene thus from Acts 20.7 That the Lords day was the time so early set apart to the Lords Supper and such holy duties and for collections Pract. cat 2. ed. p. 273. The parallel that I set betwixt the Lords-day and Christmas was onely 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 immediately from the Apostles Now 1. These last words spoil his parallel that the Lords-day came immediately from the Apostles and that as an Institution Divine whereas his Festival came not at all from any Institution of the Apostles but from the usage of the succeeding Church 2. That the Lords-day had a law to found it on the fourth Commandment for one day of seven of Divine appointment as was shewed above and needed onely a Divine designation which was done by Christ or his Apostles but his Festival had no law to found it on but rather a prohibition if made a part of Worship But yet the Doctor goes on 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 lawfull yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former Here are misadventures enough for so few lines 1. He now secretly waves the Apostles Institution of the Lords-day and brings it to their usage that so it might be equal to his Festival an usage onely 2. Then he would have it supposed for he is excellent at suppositions that will not be granted him that the usage of the Apostles will make any thing Divine which is most unreasonable unless he will again recal and establish as Divine the old Sabbath and other Jewish Ceremonies 3. He hath much ado to forbear to say The usage of the succeeding Church must be Divine also next to that and lawful and obligatory almost as much as that of the Apostles as well though not in so high a degree 4. If the Authority for instituting of the Lords-day and his Festivals be the same as he hath asserted often and both derived from the Apostles then either the usages and Festivals of the succeeding Church are Divine or those of the Apostles are but humane and Ecclesiastical And then the usages of the succeeding Church are not onely lawful and obligatory as well as those of the Apostles but as much and in as high a degree also the Authority being the same But the Doctor is engaged and cannot fairly go back that the Lords-day is of Apostolical Institution and their Institution also Divine and does not that carry in it Divine prescrition or Law He will help himself by a distinction n. 6.284 If by institution be meant giving law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition n. 7. But 't is possible that Institution of the day by the Apostles may signifie that the Apostles practice in assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an Institution or Law with the succeeding Church though the Apostles gave no law for it or no such law appears from them Never I think was it heard that an Apostolical usage was called by the name of an Apostolical Institution Or that the Apostles practice was ground sufficient to make an Institution or Law to the succeeding Church Yes sayes he n. 8. The Aposiles examples are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law and in this sense I consent to the Diatribist that their Institutions carry in them Divine prescription or a Law But I shall not thank him for this consent and shall enter my discent against this last proposition That the Apostles examples c. He should have instanced in some such usages onely that carry in them a Divine Law and have no other grounds of Scripture to import a Divine Institution And if such usages carry in them a Divine Law why hath he not spoken out and told us that his Festivals being derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church are Divine Institutions and not onely Apostolical usages Yet he growes confident to demand this as granted n. 9. 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 He means as well as the Lords-day This this is the Helena the Doctor so contends for to stablish by Tradition that which cannot be proved from Scripture But I would say 1. There are not many things so derived to us from the Apostles through all ages except the Lords-day and Infant Baptisme though this latter hath not in Scripture Apostolical practice as the former hath But had not both of them sufficient grounds in Scripture to infer a Divine Institution Infants communicating in the Lords Supper continued six hundred years in the Church sayes Dr. Morton Appeal l. 2. c. 13. s 3. I for my part should not be much perswaded by a meer Apostolical usage through many ages from the Apostles themselves For it s known the Apostles
did frequent the Assemblies on the old Sabbath and it was observed as I remember together with the Lords-day for the four first Centuries yet cast off at last as not Divine And therefore I must profess my dislike of the Doctors proceedings in his plea for Infant Baptisme meerly or chiefly from Tradition of Apostolical practice and in a manner waving * As imperfect wayes of proving it Inf. Bapt. p. 2. n. 1 2. and professing to lay the most weight upon Apostolical practice p. 95 n. 39. that is Tradition of the Church n. 9. the Scriptures whereon all our Divines do found it But this was done to bring in his beloved Easter and Episcopacy so much doated on For the first how well he hath demonstrated it to be derived from the Apostles as a Christian Festival let the Reader judge by what hath been said above For the other of Episcopacy it leads into a new controversie wherein other Learned men are engaged to them I leave it But I cannot pass by another odious comparison betwixt it and the Lords-day Et si non aliqua nocuisset c. He appeals my knowledge Episcopacy hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords-day I do here profess his mistake of my knowledge for I know no such matter and I durst venture my skill to prove It hath if any thing at all not so much much less perfectly and in every respect to be said for it in the Scriptures as the Lords-day But I shall not enter into a new debate But he speaks of a demonstration of Easter to be derived from the Apostles well then he may insult over the Lords day if he can finde a Law in Scripture for it and none for the Lords day n. 7. And that is found by him in 1 Cor. 5.8 Let us keep the Paschal Festivity so he rendered is Fest s 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us keep the Feast here 's an express Law if it be meant of Easter-day as the Doctor would have us believe But against this I brought some Interpretations and Authorities from Ancient and Modern Writers taking it in another sense and I might have brought more but that I would not fill my pages and trouble my Reader when the context clears it from the Doctors gloss If the Doctor did not believe it why did he cite it If he did believe it why doth he so poorly relinguish it For first he slights all those Authorities onely telling us It were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies p. 285. n. 11 Det. of Inf. Bapt. against M. Tombs p. 17. n. 26. Yet elsewhere says The word is by circumstances applied to the Feast of Easter p. 244. n. 12. as some ground in Scripture for the observation Estius with Beza better hits the sense Sicuâ— Judaei fermento abstinebant quamdiu Pascha celibrabant it a vos Christiana perpetuum Pascha agentes semper oporter abstinere à fermento veteris ac pâ—avae conversationis Itaque Epulemur c. In locum But I could bring him one Testimony that he may not well slight who thus glosses that text Paul himself saying that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us the plain meaning of it being this that the Jewish Passover being abolished we have now the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ substituted in the stead of it Not the Jewish Paschal Feast being abolished Easter Feast is substituted instead of it let us therefore keep the Feast of the Lords Supper which was the very gloss of Aquinas by me produced Secondly as he slights them so he shakes off me with a lofty scorn I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such learned men As if no body of his Adversaries at least not my poor self did converse with the Fathers and other Learned men but himself who yet takes upon him Magisterially and Dictator like to vent his own Interpretations of Scripture quite against the Judgement of many Ancient and most Modern learned Protestants And whether it advantage me or no sure it will prejudice him not a little to bring a text to prove a Law for Easter which his own conscience tells him is not the sense of it by that means to advance it above the Lords-day when he confesses all that he was to prove there was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them As for me whether I have brought from Scripture some other places which are more Apodictical evidences of Apostolical Institution which imports a Law for the Lords day it is left to the Indifferent Reader to judge As for Aerius his being condemned by Epiphanius for holding Festivals unlawful p. 286. n. 1. as also he did Episcopacy if he meant onely as some think he did that it was unlawful to make Festivals parts of Worwip or Holy-days equal with the Lords-day as he was unjustly branded for an Heretick for this opinion so he hath in this as also in the matter of Episcopacy as the Doctor knowes many Orthodox learned Divines of his opinion who were never called Hereticks for so doing I shall give him the thoughts and desires of some of them First Bucer whom the Doctor delights to cite sometimes in Matth. 12. Ferias alias praetur diem Dominicum optarim abrogatus universas c. I could wish that every Holy-day beside the Lords-day were abolished The zeal which brought them in was without all warrant of the word and meerly followed corrupt reason viz. N. B. to drive out the Holy-days of the Pagans c. Those Holy-days have been so tainted with Superstitions that I wonder that any Christian should not tremble at their very names The next is Oecolampadius in Isa 1.4 I never heard wise man yet who did not judge that a great part at least of other Feasts besides the Lords day should be abolished The last shall be the learned Zanchie who though he speaks favourably sometimes of some Festivals yet thus delivers his judgement It is most agreeable to the first Institution and Apostolical writings that one day onely in the week be kept holy in 4. Precept n. 3. Let the Doctor now go on and call these learned men Hereticks in paraphrase as he plainly does it will be little for his credit I shall in the next place take the Doctor at his word p. 286. n. 4. He professes If I shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe Feasts are superstitious he will think himself obliged to do more then deny the accusation That is I suppose he will acknowledge it and retract his errour Now I accept the condition and shall appeal to the Doctors own conscience whether I have not brought fairer evidences of solid arguments and reasons and that from his own concessions that he is superstitious in observing his Festivals then he