himself are guilty of an affected departure from the Universall Church If the Church of England at her first Reformation saw cause and had Power to throw away some may not the same Church of England having the same power upon just the same or like reasons cast off the rest If he say Hee speaks it of the Universall Church of all Ages and especially of the first age wee shalll joyne issue with him therein and and say If he can prove which I am confident he cannot that in rejecting or not observing these Festivalls wee have departed from the Universall Church in all ages wee shall be content to let his censure fall upon us till then we are safe And for a closure of the whole matter we shall take into consideration his Rule prescribed in his first Quaerie abour Resolving controversies and be judged by it It is this Quaere 1. Sect. 35 What ever hath the concordant attestation of the Christian Church of the first ages the Scripture remaining obscure or silent in the matter that it was the Doctrine or practise Apostolicall there remains not to any that now lives any imaginable ground of sober or prudent doubting or questioning the truth of it This resolution and Case the Doctor beginns with and intends it as a Rule applicable to all the following cases against Socinians and other Hereticks and Schismaticks Sect. 40. Hee means we thank him those that reject this Festivall as Sect. 12. and 45. of this Quaerie appears But is this Rule universally true Are there no cautions nor exceptions yes three at least 1. It must be in cases where the Scripture is either obscure or silent in the matter 2. That it be not extended any further than to the primitive Antients 3. And again to an accordance of those Testimonies without any considerable opposition that this or that was delivered from the Apostles We shall by his leave apply this rule to the case in hand and dare venture to be judged by it First considering the Rule and then the cautions And first for the Rule it selfe we desire to know again what he means by the Church of the first ages If he take it inclusively to take in the Churches of the Apostolicall time while they were yet alive wee should not stick to grant his rule to be good What ever doctrine or practise hath the concordant attestation of that Church it was Apostolicall The Negative whereof being a surer Rule to jvdge by What ever doctrine or practise wants such concordant universall uniform Attestation is not Apostolical For they being all guided by on Spirit would all agree uniformly in the same Doctrine or practice But there are not many things so attested by the Church of that age On the other side if he meane it exclusively of that age and to include onely the after ages it will prove a Crooked Rule Many Doctrines and practises being taken up which were not Apostolicall but meer Inventions of men which like a Gangreen soon overspead the face of the Church And by the different Timing and observation of them proved by the best Divines not to be Apostolicall Secondly for the concordant attestation of the primitive Antients of the second or third Age without considerable opposition which is one of the Cautions that this was delivered from the Apostles I shall put in a just exception in the words of the learned and honoured Lord Falkland in his discourse Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome who plead the universall Tradition of the Church for their Religion as the Doctor does for his Christmas Thus he writes If the Relation of one Pappias could cozen so farre all the prime Doctors of the Church Christian into a beliefe of the celebration of a thousand years after the Resurrection so as that not one of those two first ages oppose it marke that till Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least 250. yeares after Christ nay if those first men did not onely believe it as probable but Justin Martyr saith he holds it and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainer than any other Tradition is proved or said to be out of Antiquity by them of Rome If I say these could be so deceived why might not other of the Antients as well be deceived in other points And then what certainty shall the learned have when after much labour they thinke they can make it appear that the Antients thought any thing a Tradition that indeed it was so c. The Doctors wisdome can easily apply this to the case in hand And I perceive he was aware of such an objection and therefore labours to prevent it by saying That Justin Martyr Quaer 1. sect 38. the prime assertor of it that 's a mistake for he and Irenaeus also had it from Pappias who was their Senior confesses other Christians of pure and pious intentions to he otherwise minded But for that let him answer his friend the Lord Falkland Lo. Falk reply p. 73. who saies That Justin Martyr saies that in his time all all Orthodox Christians held it and joynes the opposers with them who denyed the resurrection and esteems them among the Christians like the Saduces among the Jewes and again saies It found no resistance in above two Ages by any one known and esteemed person And what now is become of the Doctors Rule Thirdly the Rule applyed to the case in hand will prove more then the Doctor intended a light to discover his Christmas far from an universall Apostolicall usage For. 1. The Rule must hold onely in things wherein the Scripture is obscure or silent But for Institution of Feasts particularly this of Christmas the Scripture is neither obscure nor silent For the Scripture is cleare and speaks aloud against it both in the Law the fourth Commandement which requires peremptorily but one of seaven for God allowing six for mens occasions and also in the Gospell which clearly speaks against observation of daies except the Lords day the the Christian Sabbath whither Jewish Heathenish or Christian Festivalls of old were part of the Ceremoniall yoke upon the Jewes and therefore to give the Church a power to institute Holydaies is to reduce the yoke again 2. They have not the concordant Testimonie of the Primitive Antients neither of the Apostles themselves nor of those that lived in the same age with them as of Ignatius nor in the second Centurie of Pappias Justin Martyr Irenaeus c. which may the better be believed because the Doctor brings not one instance of any of those so much as mentioning this Festivall except out of the Constitutions of the Apostles falsely so called which Isodorus by Gratians report of him Dist 16. saies Where known to be corrupted by Hereticks under the name of the Apostles This Chemnitius further proves because the
2. The Worship of the Law was for the most part Ceremoniall in externall pompe and services But the Worship of the Gospel is lesse ceremonious and gaudie and more spirituall Joh. 4. in spirit and truth opposed to those ceremoniall typicall shadowes and figures of the Legall worship The Gospel Worship is for the most part morall praying preaching hearing c. without any thing like to that ceremoniall worship except the observation of the Lords day and the two Sacraments designed and instituted by Christ himself or by his Commission But if the Church have a power to institute ceremoniall Worship she may bring us back to a Legall worship equall with the Jewes as the Church of Rome hath done 2. If the Church have any such power to institute Ceremonies they must be either Non-significant ones but those Protestants disclaim as idle fooleries or significant and then either by nature or Institution Those of nature need no Institution If Institution be pleaded it must be either Divine but the Church hath nothing to do with them they are instituted to her hands Or Humane but that 's expreslly against the second Commandement as hath been said elsewhere God onely can prescribe his own worship Hence it was that those Traditions of worship introduced by the false teachers are coudemned because they were the Doctrines and commandements of men Col. 2.22 which when our Divines urge against such kind of ceremoniall worship in the Church of Rome as Humane Institutions they have no way to avoid it Vide Estium Corne l. A lapide in locum but to say Ceremonies instituted by an humane spirit as ours are are there condemned but theirs are instituted by the holy Ghost joyning with their Pastors in the Regiment of the Church as the Rhemists speak on Math. 15.9 and others more And therefore Papists may better plead their binding power than ours can do I shall adde to this That to institute significant ceremonies as a part of Worship is a superstjtious excesse and so Wil-worship which I prove from the Doctors own Concessions To put more virtue and efficacie into things Of Superstition sect 45. then either naturally or by the Rule of Gods Word is in them is a nimiety so Superstition but for men to institute significant ceremonies for edification to teach and instruct c. is to put more virtue and efficacy in them then naturally or by the Rule of the Word that is Divine Institution God put in them ergo The Major is the Doctors own the Minor is evident They have it not by Nature nor by divine Institution then they needed not humane Institution ergo it is superstitious and consequently the Church hath no such power 3. Grant her but such power and there will be no end of Ceremonies no man can tell where she will stay Of Superstit sect 38. unlesse some bounds be prescribed in Scripture The Doctors qualifications That they be few and wholsome have no ground to rest on For who shall judge of the number or unwholsomnes without a Rule Not any private man that 's denyed and very reasonably Not a particular Church the Universall may judge otherwise Not the Universall Church of one Age for the next Generation may be wiser and thinke them too few or too many not wholsom or unwholsom and so may either multiply or annul them See more of this in the Discourse of Superstition Sect. 32.33 Upon this ground grow all those more then Jewish ceremonies of the Romish Church That of the first 2. The Doctor takes for granted also that the Church hath power to institute Holy daies such as Christmas and to make them equall with the Lords day For of this he is speaking while he gives the Church this unquestionable power but he cannot but know this is denyed by many Divines 3. He also takes as yeelded That there is some ancient Institution of this Church for his Christmas from our first conversion which must be the ground for it to stand on and a competent Authoritie for the continuance of such a practise in this Kingdome but this he hath not proved 4. Once more he takes as granted That such ceremonies or Festivals established by a Church That were to restrain our liberty and to exchange one burthen for another So the Dr. of Superstition sect 56. may not without great temerity be changed or abolished by any What not by the Universall Church not by the succeeding Church That were to make the Laws of a particular Church like those of the Medes and Persians unchangeable and equall with the Laws of God Or else to cut short the succeeding Church from the same priviledge of the former and so in time the Church may lose all power to institute New ceremonies or else ceremonies may be multiplyed to the end of the world And so much of the first the Authority of the Church to institute Ceremonies A word of the next Secondly we must enquire whether if the Church have any power to ordain any Ceremonies this of Christmas be such as she may ordain We have said and say again to institute Holy daies and to make them parts of Geds worship is a priviledge of God alone If now the Doctor shall say The Church institutes this Festival onely as a circumstance or Adjunct of Worship commanded it will bee little to his purpose and makes it no more holy than any other day when the same worship is performed But it s evident that in the Church of Rome this and other Festivals are not counted meer Ceremonies in that sense but as parts of Divine Worship and so observed with greater solemnities and more Ceremonies than the Lords day it self which is both superstitious and sacrilegious And thus it hath been with some yea many of our Prelatical and Cathedral men esteemed and observed not onely as equally holy with the Lords day but with more solemn services with more abstinencie from labour and recreations as we shall hear our Doctor confesse anon We now consider what he sayes to prove the disusing of these Feasts blameable § 10. These are part of that establishment which the Reformation in this Kingdom hath enacted for us by act of Parliament To this we say 1. The Reformation formerly made in this Kingdome we have good cause to blesse God for but we know it was not so full and perfect as the Reformers themselves could have wished by reason of the times new come out of the darknesse of Popery and the tenaciousnesse of old customs received by tradition of their Fathers 2. This seems to grant that the Reformation and so the establishment of these Festivals in this Nation was made by the State and not by the Church which now is pleaded for § 11. Secondly This other Feasts of Christ are in the Reformed especially the Lutheran Churches stil retained and where they are taken away in some Churches by some sober members wished for We answer to
the Lawes of the Church and so it proceeds from obedience to superiours Vid. Append a dutie of the 5th Commandement But to the particulars we say many things Pract. Catech on 4. Commandement 1. Did he not a little before found the Times or daies designed to publick worship upon the equity or morality of the 4th Commandement Hear what he saies of the Importance of that 4th Commandement It is a designation of Time for the speciall performing of Gods publick worship and again It is not onely lawful but necessary to set apart some times for Gods service he means by that Commandement Then say I if the 4th Commandement do necessarily require a designation of some Time for worship private as well as publick for so hee resolves in answer to the next question there does not the same Commandement as necessarily require the observation or sanctification of that Time but it must be reduced to the 5. Commandement Let him remember what he saies in his Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 4. If the matter of the command were before commanded by God 't were then no longer obedience to the Law of the Magistrate but onely to God The application is easie and I adde must God be beholden to men either for the designation or observation of his due Time by a duty from the 5th Commandement What if Superiours be so prophane See Sabbath Redevivum at large these things as to set apart no time for Gods worship or not to enjoine and require the observation of that Time is every man free to observe some or none at his pleasure what if there be no Publick Worship what if a man be and live in places where neither Time nor Publick Worship is appointed by Superiours is hee now at libertie to take all Time as his own so it seemes by this Doctrine if men observe Times Lords day and others onely as a dutie to Superiours in the 5th Commandement 2. He takes for granted that the Designation of the sufficient Time due and necessary by the 4th Commandement is in the power of men Church or state which we say belongs onely to God 3. He also supposes that the Church or State hath power to Sanctifie a Time so that it must not ordinarily be mixed with prophane and common uses which wee think God onely can doe 4. He also takes it as granted that the Church may designe as little or as much as few or as many Times or Daies as they shall think fitt and that ordinarily in every week or month or year without Sperstition as an act of piety which we suppose they cannot do without prejudice to the 4th Commandement and to Christian liberty seeing the burden of Jewish Holydayes is taken off by Christ and we reduced to the 4th Commandement as for one day in seaven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works The result of this answer is this that they that retain this usage of the Festival as a day made Holy by the Church or state are both injurious to God in usurpation upon his prerogative in the 4th Commandement and also guilty of Willworship in holding up a Worship not commanded by God against the second Commandement 2. In respect to those who first instituted it without command from others in whom onely it is called Will-worship they are free from guilt too 1. because among the Jewes some Feasts were instituted that of Purim and of the Dedication without command c. 2. Freewill-offerings of this Nature are to be the more not the lesse acceptable for being voluntary To this we say in generall it may be Will-worship to observe what is commanded by others as well as to institute worship without a command In speciall to the first reason the Feasts instituted by the Jewes we shall speak anon here sect 29. To the second of Freewill-offerings wee say 1. These Holydayes of mens Institution are not like those Freewill-offerings of the old Law as we have shewed upon his Treatise of Willworship sect 29. 2. We add it is not in the power of men to institute any worship not commanded by God and is flatly against the second Commandement But these Holydaies are by him made parts of Worship 3. Suppose the Jewes should have made more Holydaies yearly than God commanded would they have been accepted should they not have heard who required these at your hands wee may guesse by their Fasts which they appointed God instituted one Fast onely once a year upon the Expiation day They in their captivity appointed more in the 5. and 7. month yearly but what acceptance found they see Zech. 7.5 when yee fasted and mourned in the 5. and 7. month even those 70. years did yee at all fast to me even to me And may not Papists who have a Saint and an Holyday allmost for every day in the year be justified by this arguing Hath it not a great shew of wisdome Piety Devotion to devoâ—e most of their time to God Are they not their Free-wil-offerings the more acceptable because voluntary and uncommanded Let no man say they dedicate those daies to Saints and Invocate the Saints c. and that makes them abhominable But suppose none of those but the Holy daies be as the Church of England expressed herself devoted onely to the honour of God but yet esteemed as more holy aad as a Worship of God and more acceptable to God because voluntary even these and that other that it s done without command of God will denominate them Will-worship and so odious to God And so much for that Secondly he comes now to vindicate it from Superstition and saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Supestitum cultus worshiping of Daemons or soules of dead men but its little lesse then blasphemie to number Christ with them c. To which we say For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Superstition wee have considered it in his Treatise of Superstition and have found him granting the sense of them to be farre larger than the Worshiping of Daemons And wee have proved it rather to signifie any false Superradded worship not commanded of God A Nimiety or excesse of Religion as Super statutum above the Law of God In a word any false worship of the true God which is exemplified in many particulars there amongst which this is one In placing the worship of God or more holinesse in things times places c. then God hath placed in them Wee shall consider what he saies to vindicate this Festivall from it 1. The Birth of Christ is a mercy of such excellent quality that it can never be overvalued c. This is granted But to Institute a day as Holy without command of Christ for an Annuall commemoration of this is above the power of any Church and a Superstitious presumption and withall needlesse considering that the Lords day which includes the commemoration not onely of his Birth but his Resurrection and the
Fathers of the first Ages doe not so much as intimate any such usage in their times No mention there is amongst the most antient of celebrating the Feast of the Nativitie till Basills Nazianzenes and Chrysostomes time who lived not till the fourth Centurie at least They say indeed it was in practise in some places before their time but that might be some 100. more or lesse years and yet be farre from the first ages of the Church or being Universall 3. Another of the Doctors cautions is it must be attested without any considerable opposition But this his Christmas found in the fourth Centurie as we heard Sect. 44. In Chrysostomes time there was a considerable opposition Many being doubtfull many charging the Festivity with novelty and as of late brought in For a conclusion then of all the Doctors Censure is too harsh and the Character too hard that is set upon the refusing of it That it hath nothing but the Novelty and contempt of Antiquity to recommend it unto any We shall onely put him in mind of two places in his owne writings The one here at Sect. 35. the other Testimony of Nicephorus That Justinus the Emperor first commanded it to be kept Festivall over the world Then say I it was not an Universall usage in all ages of the Church which the Doctor hath so long pleaded for for Justinus lived in the sixt Century I know what hee answers to it That belonging onely to the edict of the Emperour for the universall observation doth no way prejudge the Churches whither Apostolicall or Primitive Institution of it It s enough to prejudge the universall observation of it in all Ages and consequently it is not Apostolicall The other place is in his Practicall Catechisme where he confesses pag. 181. It was not solemnized universally till about 400. yeares after Christ. How often hath he charged us with departure from the Universall Church in rejecting and not observing the Festivities of the Universall Church c. Sect. 12. and in that Sect. 45. I hope upon second thoughts hee will be more moderate in his Censures and find that his rash zeale for the Authority of the Church his Mother and Tradition of the Antients his Fathers hath carried him beyond the bounds of Reason and Religion § 46. The remaining part of the Doctors discourse is spent in answering 16. Quaries propounded by another But most of what hee hath said may be taken away by what hath above beene answered I shall not put my sickle into another mans Corn but leave it to the Author of them or some friend of his to vindicate them § 74. The Doctor now for a conclusion drawes out some Quaeres of his owne to be considered and answered by him that shall undertake this businesse as a shorter way to question and debate the truth or supposed certainty of some of his own principles For an essay this § 75. Whither it be not lawfull for the Church either nationall of one or Universall of all parts of Christendome especially of that age nearest the Apostles of the first and purest time to take upon it to institute one or more daies upon any speciall occasion of some eminent mercy of Gods toward the whole Church to be used yearly in acts of Christian piety and charity Chemnit Exam. de dieb Fest Ames Medul in 4. precept D. Riv. in Exod. 20. p. 206. 6. by all the Children of that Church and to expect obedience from them But under favour this is not the question now between us For not onely the Lutherans but even the most rigid Calvinists and Nonconformists as they were called do grant That the Church or rather the State hath power to set apart any day to the acts of piety and charity not onely upon extraordinary eminent mercies but upon ordinary occasions provided 1. They be not too many for number nor 2. Imposed as necessary to the prejudice of Christian libertie Nor 3. made parts of the worship of God and other like cautions and conditions by them prescribed And if the Superiour Powers shall appoint such daies so qualified this may secure both those that institute them and those that observe them from any crime of Superstition It s more then probable that they who first appointed those daies in memory of the Martyrs in their particular Churches intended no more but on such a day yearly to commemorate the Faith and constancie of those holy Sufferers as with thanks to God for his Graces in them so to the Incouragement of other Christians to imitate their virtues But after Ages soon grew Superstitions in their Number in their use and end Dedicating daies to to Saints Invocating them in their prayers Making the observation of them necessary The daies themselves holy holyer than other daies than the Lords day placing the worship of God in them expecting more acceptance more blessing from the services of those daies as a voluntary worship These abuses were foreseen by the Reformed Churches and thereupon either the Daies were rejected altogether by some or cautioned against by others especially by this Church of England as all doe know But when this last generation of misdevout men began to exceed in the honour estimation and observance of those remaining Festivalls especially this of Christmas equalling them with if not preferring them above the Lords day as was said before c. then those that were conscientious and tender of the Worship of God beganne to oppose such inchroachments upon it who formerly did observe the daies and others that thought they had Power in their hands did lay them aside upon these reasons It were too long to instance the particular Superstitions not onely of the vulgar people but even of many Divines discovered in their Practises and Discourses against the Lords day and for the Holydaies None that I know or have met with have manifested more waies of being Superstitious in this Subject of Holydaies than the Doctor in this discourse of Festivalls as hath beene made appeare at the end of the sixteenth Section to which I referre the Reader and proceede to his second question § 77. Whither such an antient Institution of the Church of Christ by name the anniversarie feast of Christs birth though it be not affirmed to be commanded by Christ or instituted by the Apostles or in it selfe considered without respect to the Institution absolutely necessary to the being of a Church yet being thus more than lawfull pious in it selfe proper in respect of the ground primitively Catholick if not Apostolick in respect of the Institution may be lawfully abolished c. Wherein the Doctor takes for granted these things which he hath not proved 1. That this Festivall is of so antient Institution as primitively Catholick if not Apostolick Seeing it hath beene made appear to be neither 1. Apostolicke or 2. a Primitive Institution nor 3. Of Catholick observation till at least the 400. yeare by his owne confession 2. That it
day than on the other Thirdly that the excesses and riot are onely on other daies after the Nativity is a poor excuse For the whole twelve daies are accounted part of the Festivity and ordered to wait upon it Sect. 39. That feast consisted of all the twelve daies saies the learned Doctor The Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time sect 63. And so the Day it selfe is guilty in part of all the excesses of the following dayes which are services fitter for the Revells of Bacchus or Saturn or for the birthday of an Herod than for the Festivity of a Spirituall Saviour § 27. Hee now passes from the Authority of the particular Church of England to that of the universall Christian Church to shew upon what grounds Festivalls in generall this of the Nativity in special pretend to stand and that he doth by certain degrees or steps § 28. First he acknowledges it hath not its beginning from any institution of Christ but either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church That it was not instituted by the Apostles the same arguments will conclude which are used against their Institution of Easter sect 6.1 There is no mention either of Institution or observation of it in Scripture nor any ground produced thence to found it on 2. Socrates the Historian saies expresly Neither our Saviour Lib. 5. cap. 22. nor the Apostles commanded it the Feast of Easter to be observed and there the scope was not speaking of the Apostles to settle any lawes for Festivall daies but of a good life If for no Festivalls then not for this of the Nativity And its observable what he addes There are some who think all whoredome to be a thing indifferent that do contend for Festivall daies as for life It must then remain upon the succeeding Church And there is no doubt but this is true the succeding Church did set up Festivalls but what Church was that not that of the Apostles age nor that of Apostolicall men that had lived some time with the Apostles For the first Records of Fathers wee have say not a word of any such observation The succeeding Church in the second or third Centurie it seemes began to take it up and then Socrates addes They that received such rites from their Ancestors afterwards transmitted them to their posterity as a Law And here is the most likely Originall of all Festivalls Heare what the learned Lord Faulkland saies in a like case to our purpose some of great authority moved by a good meaning might thus deceive others these thus deceived might deceive others till being generally spread other good men being loath to oppose them for the same reason for which others desired to spread them thinking it an errour that would encrease piety they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles without contradiction To which may be added what he had said in the end of the former page In those things which were beleeved very convenient and yet feared that unlesse men counted them necessary they would be backward to practise how easie was it for them to be after taught under pain of more danger then at first they were delivered with But Superstitious rites were never without a shew of wisdome as the Apostle saies Col. 2.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a faire pretence of Reason And the Doctor gives us one here It being very reasonable that those who acknowledged the receit of such a mercy from God as was the gift of his Son c. should desire to celebrate the remembrance of it and offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ But if this was so very reasonable why did it not seeme so to the Apostles and the Church of that and the next age Or did not they acknowledge the receit of such a mercy and were not their desires as fervent for the celebration of a Remembrance of ir c. would not Christ himselfe respect his owne service and honour Nor his Apostles prescribe and institute a voluntary oblation to Christ if they had thought it so great an honour to him Are not all Superstious inventions of men in the worship of God intended as voluntary oblations to him because they would not have their pietie restrained within those narrower bounds of doing nothing in the service and to the honour of Christ but what was distinctly prescribed and particularly instituted by him which is expresly against the second Commandement by the Apostle under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Willworship Col. 2.23 18. as we have said § 29. Such saies he was the Feast of the Dedication of the Altar among the Jewes not instituted by God himselfe yet the observation of it was approoved and confirmed by Christs presence at that Feast Joh. 10.23 But there may be many mistakes in this and not applyable to the case in hand First there were which he takes notice of three Feasts of the Dedication 1. by Solomon 2. by Zerubbabell at the Repairing of the Temple 3. by Judas Maccabaeus for the purging of it Now hee cannot but know that learned men are divided of which its here meant Some of the first Vide Tolet in Ioh. 10.23 some of the second though its probable it was not meant of either of them both because we read not that those two were ever observed above once and also because of the time of the observation specified it was in winter which the other were not 2. But grant it of the last yet there are reasons to think that it was not a Religious Festivall but civill as the Feast of Purim seemes to be Esth 9.21.22 A day of feasting and joy and sending portions one to another and gifts to the poor And so it s said of the Feast of Dedication 1 Maccab. 4.59 They ordering it should be kept yearly with mirth and gladnesse For though it be said ver 56. they offered burnt offerings yet that was ver 53. according to the Law and so was worship commanded 3. If it yet be said it was a Religious Festivall and so observed even the day it self then it may fairly be suggested That they went beyond their commission in making this feast Annuall and perpetuall which neither Solomon nor Zerubbabell did theirs for ought we read And so those were kept as extraordinary daies of thanksgiving for one turn onely which we grant lawfull to be done by the Superiour powers as also we do extraordinary daies of Humiliation which the Doctor also approves pract Catech. Append. p. 304.4 Another mistake is this that that Feast was approved confirmed by Christs presence at it The t xt produced saies no such thing but onely thus It was at Jerusalem marke that not at the Temple not elsewhere the Feast of the Dedication and ver 22. Jesus walked in the Temple So hee did other daies any day when no Feast was Hee was present in the Temple not at the Feast for ought appeares which it seemes was kept