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
of most high concernment is in the Church we must grant that she hath power enough to institute what Ceremonies she shall think usefull in the service of God But he is yet more liberal 2. The fourth Commandment being given to the Jews for one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes c. But his Colleagues say that proportion of time in the fourth Commandment was Ceremoniall and so void and one day in eight or ten might be sufficient if the Church so pleased And what is this equitableness the Doctor speaks of not just and necessary it may not be less yea must be so much at least but fit and convenient to be designed by the Church nay by every Christian for so he says For if he should yeild it necessary by this Commandment to set apart one day in seven he grants the fourth Commandment to be moral for so much time which ere long he will as others do deny There would then remain nothing to be done but to finde out that particular day of seven to be assigned for God and his service and who hath power to do it For that he is yet more liberal then some of his partners The first day of the week and accordingly he supposes it instituted by the Apostles of Christ Surely this is one of the Doctors Free-will-offerings and we if not God are much beholden to him if he would not retract this gift which he will do anon founding the Lords-day and his Festivals on the same Authority of the Church But I take what he grants kindly If the first day of the week was by Apostolical that is Divine Institution as one of seven I ask by what Rule or Commandment did they make that day necessary and moral if not by the fourth Commandment and then it 's moral not onely for some time but for one day in seven which will hardly be yeilded And again if the Lords-day be of Apostolicall divine institution according to the fourth Commandment it is Holy above not onely all other days in the week but above all his Festivals for which he hath nothing in the fourth Commandment nor can prove them of Apostolicall Institution the most he pretends to is but Apostolical practice and observation And therefore fearing he hath yeilded too much he starts back and says As among the Jews n. 7. beside the weekly Sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many Festivities some appointed by God himself others instituted by men Yet constantly observed without prejudice to the fourth Commandment So nothing hinders but under the Gospel the Church may ordain Christian Feasts c. As for those Feasts appointed by men they have their place below where they shall be spoken to For those of Gods appointment we do not think the fourth Commandment exclusive to hinder God for appointing what dayes he pleases onely it presupposing the power of ordaining Holy-days to belong to God it excludes men for setting up any as holy without his leave It cannot therefore be inferred reasonably God had power to appoint what Holy-days he pleased to the Jewes ergo the Church under the Gospel may appoint as many as she will Besides those Festivals of the Jewes beside the weekly Sabbath were typical and Ceremonial and a part of their yoke which being taken off by Christ it becomes not the Church to put the same and a greater upon the necks of Christians Adde to this that those Festivals were not properly reducible to the fourth Commandment requiring but one in seven whereas the Doctor will fetch them all in under his fundamental morality of some times to be assigned for Gods service by the fourth Commandment that is such as the Church shall appoint and yet pleads the fifth Commandment to justifie obedience to them not as an act of Will-worship but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fifth Commandment Which sure needed not if the fourth Commandment be morall for assigning some times for Gods service by the Church for that Commandment will both command and justifie their obedience That we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day in seven to be holy so for our allowance of six days for our own works p. 263. n. 8. he says 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it where did he reduce us to the fourth Commandment Did not the Dr. say even now n. 6. That it 's equitable by that Commandment that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for more then one in seven let him look for authority one in seven shall serve our turn And I ask by what Rule or Authority does the Doctor presume to take the allowance of the six dayes for his own occasions if not by the fourth Commandment and will he not by the same Commandment allow God one of seven But where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment I answer in Matth. 5. where he professes he came not to destroy but to fulfil and stablish the Moral Law whereof the fourth for one in seven is one But then says he 'T is visible what the consequence must be even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of that Commandment Hath not the Dr. As he did the second Commandment above ad p. 44. n. 8 The Dr. leaps from p. 152. of mine to p. 157. now destroyed one Commandment more out of the Decalogue which Christ came to establish or is not this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Dr. that the subject of the fourth Commandment was that seventh day Sabbath for if so it is as fully void as the commandment for the Paschal Sabbath or else the Doctor must turn either Jew and observe that day or Anabaptist and Quaker c. and make no Sabbath but every day a Sabbath I leave it to his choice The rest that follows in this Section is impertinent to the main business Some thing he says about the mistake of the day and venial sins not fit to be passed by For venial sins n. 11 12. he hath this passage He that talks of venial sins must be presumed not to exclude the blood of Christ c. I spake of venial sins in the notion of Papists but sure they do not include the blood of Christ when they talk of venial sins but rather exclude it saying That men need not ask God forgiveness for them but themselves may satisfie for them by an Ave Maria a Pater noster or a knock on the breast c. And the Doctors language is too like theirs The excuse of blameless ignorance will wash away greater errors then this if an error As holy water washes away venial sins with them As for the mistake of the
commendable and acceptable to God Will-worsh s 16. And again The more acceptable for the voluntaries as being in that parallel to those oblations which are pronounced most acceptable s 19. But I assume the observation and dedication of his Festival together with the services done upon the day are such as God hath not commanded by any particular precept but voluntary and therefore the more acceptable by the Doctors Divinity the conclusion then may not be refused therefore he is superstitious 3. To place the Worship of God in observation of a day which God hath not made holy is superstitious So Chemnitius charges the Papists to do and this was by me laid down as a Species of Superstition Sect. 6. 8. Of Superst Whereunto we have the Doctors consent or silence But if he should deny it it might be proved thus both from the definition of Superstition given by the School-man A vice contrary to Religion in the excess which the Scripture calls addition to the Rule of Worship and also by the scope and sum of the second Commandment God must prescribe his own Worship which the Doctor himself hath glossed as the sense of that Commandment as is cleared above And it may yet be farther confirmed from his words and grants To make new sorts or kindes of Worship is by him condemned as Superstition p. 12. n. 13. But to place the Worship of God in the observation of any day that God hath not made holy is to make a new sort or kind of Worship and consequently is Superstition But the Doctor places the Worship of God in the observation of a day which God confessedly hath not made holy his Festival This I shall prove many wayes 1. His Festival is one of his Free-will-offerings which anciently was a part of Worship 2. He calls it Will-worship which includes voluntary uncommanded Worship so he often explains it and so being uncommanded Worship it is a new sort or kinde of Worship which God hath not commanded 3. He calls the consecration of it a voluntary oblation which signifies Worship An oblation to God in honour to him Sect. 59. Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ Sect. 28. 4. He equalls the observation of it with the Lords-day both in abstaining from labours and making the very rest it self an oblation to God as we shall hear in the next All these make it a part of Worship as high as the Lords-day our Christian Sabbath made holy by Divine institution Therefore again the Doctor in so doing is superstitious 4. To forbid labours on that day when they hinder not the publick Worship if God have not made it holy is superstitious The reason is because God allows men six days for their own works And though it be lawful for the Magistrate or Church to set a part a Time ordinarily for publick Worship yet not to prohibit labours all the day when that publick Worship is ended and to make Rest necessary for the whole day for that is to make it as holy as God himself did and doth the Sabbath But the Doctor forbids labours and requires rest from sports much more sure from labours all the day of his Festival So he says Fest Sect. 59. People may not without offence to God follow their lawful as that signifies ordinary particular or on other days lawful vocations Rest it self is farther capable of the honor of being an oblation to God if in honour to him we thus offer some part of our time unto his service What did God require more on his Sabbath to make it holy In it thou shalt do no manner of work It 's true indeed the Doctor speaks there of the Institution of the Church and the command of God to honour our superiours by submiting to them and seems to limit this strictness of Rest to the Publick Assembly on that day But when he makes Rest an oblation to God and forbids sports cards and dice on that day I can hardly believe the Doctor will allow of lawful labours Following the plough or attending the shop p. 258 n. 3. after the publick Assembly is over Yea it is known that it was held and accordingly censured as more criminous to work on this day then on the Lords-day True it is also that the Publick Worship of God on any day requires for the time cessation from our own works as necessarily inconsistent at the same time but this is equally required on any day when publick or private Worship is commanded as on his Festival day But to make it necessary to Rest from labours and a sin for people to follow their vocations on the Festival day when the Worship is ended is that we charge with the crime of Superstition And this the Doctor does ergo he is superstitious 5. To place more virtue in things or times then either naturally they have in them or by the Institution of God is superstitious So I asserted Sect. 14. So the Doctor asserted of Superst s See account p. 37. n. 17. placing more virtue in them is a fault 45. The placing of more virtue in some things then either naturally or by the Rule of Gods word may be thought to belong to them is a Nimiety and Superstition and the reasons are strong to confirm it The doing of which is either utterly groundless and then it is folly or else it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospel But the Doctor places more virtue in some things and times particularly in his Festival then either naturally or by the Rule of Gods word belongs unto them This I shall prove from himself To expect acceptance and greater reward for uncommanded service or Worship then for commanded duties is to place more virtue in them then either naturally or by the Rule of the word belongs to them for there is no promise made to such uncommanded virtues or Worship as hath been proved above But the Doctor does expresly assert and confidently expect better acceptance and greater reward for uncommanded services or his Will worship pag. 229. n. 14 15. Therefore he places more virtue in his Will-worship such he makes his Festival then doth belong unto it and consequently he proves himself to be superstitious 6. Lastly All uncommanded Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is superstitious It 's made by all our Divines a Species of Superstition and by the School-man to Worship God ut non debet with uncommanded Worship is a kinde of Superstition Yea and by the Doctor himself it must be so concluded thus All false Worship is superstition so here p. 59. n. 3. Superstition is the giving of false Worship to the true God And elsewhere but all uncommanded Worship is false Worship the Doctor I know denies this proposition but without all just reason yet so he says in the same place False worship is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worship for certainly all such is not false But I have sufficiently proved
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
Author or else have looked forward how I improved my notion which he does at last when he hath sufficiently flouted me Any of these had becom'd him better then to make himself mirth by others undeserved shame I shall not blush to confess there was an Inadvertency in me in passing those words For those words the Commandments of God having a Negative and Affirmative part were needless and impertinent here It had been sufficient to have said the duties of Religion do stand in the midst between two extremes as vertues do as my application shewes my meaning to be Or thus In stead of those first words I should have said In or against every Commandment of God here are sins of omission in the defect against the Affirmative part and of Commission in the excess against the Negative part and the duties of Religion do stand in the midst between those two sorts of sins as vertues between two extremes or thus we must observe 1. That the Commandments of God have every one of them a Negative an Affirmative part expressed or understood the omission being a sin against the Affirmative part the commission being a sin against the Negative and then 2. The duties of Religion stand in the midst between those two sorts of sins as vertues between two extremes Are not both these true and good sense But taking the advantage to abuse his Adversary he goes on First to question the Corner-stone What is the Affirmative part of the second Commandment or can it be evidenced it hath any Where of we have given him a full account above Ad p. 43. n. 4. p. 45. n. 9. Then he will suppose with me that every Commandment hath it's Negative and Affirmative part he demands onely how he could think that the duties of Religion stand in the midst What 's the Antecedant to which in the midst relates there is no other in the period but the Affirmative and Negative part but do duties of Religion stand in the midst between them two And then he goes on to make himself merry and me a scorn But letting that pass might he not in the second part of the Period have found two extremes between which as virtues do the duties of Religion stand p. 45. n. 10. This he stumbles on at length and would gladly no doubt affix that possible meaning to my words But then to what purpose was the mention of the two parts Affirmative and Negative for this he is still to seek and his Plaister not so fit for the malady as he could have wished and yet hath no better c. Yes there was a better at hand and he at last findes it The best of it is he hath not pursued this observation in the exemplification thereof Why the exemplifications might have suggested my meaning to him in all the four Commandments In the first a double errour one in the defect that 's Atheism having no God at all the other in the excess that 's Polytheisme having too many and so of the rest the duty of Religion stands in the midst to have God and him alone to Worship this is plain enough to be my meaning Yet the Doctor answers his own question n. 11. To what purpose was this observation Uncharitably enough Sure but to amuse the Reader and say somewhat demurely which should pretend to be a ground of his beloved conclusions that all Additions to the rule of Worship are excess against the second Commandment c. God deal so with my soul as I had no defign but to search out and settle the truth which I think will now appear though the Doctor would fain cloud it by saying as if it were my conclusion All Additions to the rule of Worship are excesses against the second Commandment Whereas I meant all Additions of Worship not of Circumstances are excess against that Commandment as I have proved Upon this mistake are all those questions of the Doctor p. 46. n. 12. All worship of Idols is forbidden in the second Commandment but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols c. The Doctor varies the question and then multiplies his questions He hath oft enough been told it is not about uncommanded Rites unless made parts of Worship but uncommanded Worship A Rite or Ceremony made a part of Worship by men is an Idol or Image as supra on the second Commandment All perjury p. 46. n. 12. and by Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary swearing at all is forbidden in the third Commandment but how come Rites and Ceremonies and Gestures though never so ridiculous to be either oaths or perjuries c. True it is first that perjury as it is the grossest taking of Gods Name in vain to call him to witness a lie is forbidden in the third Commandment but so was all voluntary swearing by the Name of God or Creatures forbidden in the same Commandment on the same reason in the Judgement of the best Divines 2. The Doctors question How come ridiculous Rites and Ceremonies c. in the worship of God to be perjury is it self ridiculous for though they be not perjury yet are they Takings of Gods Name in vain His question is grounded upon a double false Supposition first That the third Commandment did forbid onely perjury 2. That voluntary swearing was not forbidden in that Commandment by Moses but is part of Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or perfection added to the Law before imperfect both which are proved false The like may be said to the next question about the fourth Commandment What words of that Commandment conclude against instituting of other Holy-dayes c. as an excess c. Those words six dayes for labor and one onely for rest in a week at Gods appointment as an Holy day do conclude against all mens instituting other Holy-dayes as is proved elsewhere I gave an instance of an excess in the fourth Commandment n. 14. In Jeroboams Feast Instituted by himself like unto the Feast which was in Judea of Gods institution what was it that made that criminous Let the Doctor tell us This sure was the sin of Jeroboam to set up Calves in Dan and Bethel and so in like manner a Feast like that in Judea and sacrificing there contrary to the command of making Jerusalem the onely place of sacrifice c. So the crime was onely with respect to the place n. 15. Had that Feast been separated from that appendant sin of sacrificing elsewhere then God had appointed c. I shall desire to know why that might not have been as blameless as the Reubenites erecting an Altar by Jordan Belike then if the King of Judah had altered Gods appointed Feast at Jerusalem of his own head that had been no sin For the Reubenites Altar there are Learned men that say they did ill in erecting of it and the rest in allowing it So the ever Honoured and Judicious Calvin upon Josh 22. Duae
are many misadventures 1. That he supposes what he should have here or some where proved at least after my challenge of him to prove it Sect. 9. and stating the question for him 2. The Magistrates civil have a larger power to make Lawes in things indifferent then the Governours of the Church in Religious affairs who are tied up to the Laws of the word 3. The Doctor changes the words of the question which was of Ceremonies made parts of Religion or Worship and not of Circumstances of commanded Worship as time place c. The Papists for certain do make their Festivals Holy-dayes parts of their Religious Worship and may not they plead for observation of them p. 262. n. 4. They do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church And so in other usages of theirs Hear his second answer to this This is interpretable as a far greater kindness to them then I have ever been guilty of the Church may command in lawful things therefore it may do so in unlawful things But first what are the things unlawful which the Church of Rome commands adoration of Images the Mass c. He must know that this will not reach to my answer which is of observing by others not commanding by the Church and he cannot condemn the observers of things unlawful commanded by the Church till he have first proved that the Church had no power to command such things So by proportion he cannot justifie observers of Festivals by this that they do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church till he have not supposed but proved the Church had power to institute them wherein the force of my answer lay though the Doctor would not see it 2. But speak to the point of Holy-days which the Doctor thinks as lawful as they do If a Papist should answer my proposition and question Why do you observe your Festivals he would answere just as the Doctor does he does it in obedience to the Church and therefore it is no Will-worship But say I you must first prove the Church hath power to institute them No sayes he with the Doctor I suppose that and therefore do not prove it What can the Doctor say more He may not now come and say the Church of Rome commands things unlawful for he and they suppose Festivals to be lawful and if he say so he condemns himself with them If he shall say they command them as parts of Worship and make them Holy-dayes and that makes them unlawful he must have recourse to my answer It will not excuse the observers to say they do it in obedience to the lawes of the Church unless he prove they had power to command those things unlawful which he cannot do And if this answer be good that the Church of Rome commands things unlawful when she makes her Festival as parts of Religion and Worship c. I dare put it upon this issue that the Doctor is as guilty as they in these crimes and does them a far greater kindness then I have ever been guilty of By my answer to this first comparison he may see the unjustness of the other three which he would fain put as absurdities upon me and make me ridiculous to his Readers I could easily retort them but I forbear recrimination I shall onely say the Doctor varies the question and then makes his Inferences and Comparisons for the state of the question was whether the Church may ordain and private persons observe Festivals as Holy-dayes parts of Worship c. and then I dare make comparisons and inferences with him 1. It is as lawful for the Church of Rome or any Church to command other unlawful things as to command Festivals or observe them as Holy-dayes as parts of Worship c. for both are equally unlawfull 2. There is equal unreasonableness in besainting those that are gotten into the Calendar at Rome and consecrating that is making holy a day and a part of Worship as in consecrating a day to the commemorating of the birth of Christ upon the same terms especially some of them which were observed near the Apostles times as that of Ignatius and Polycarp is said to be which cannot be proved of his Festival But comparisons are odious and I forbear the rest he may easily make it out The onely question is Whether the Doctor as he does plead for some Festivals which they of Rome observe as well as he so do not make them as they do Holy-days and parts of Worship c. and so be equally guilty of the crimes charged upon them as they are which shall by and by be manifested But something else is first considerable The Doctor justified the observers by their obedience to the fifth Commandment I answered that he might better have justified their obedience by the fourth Commandment having founded dayes of publick Worship on that Commandment It is said he a designation of Time for the special performing of publick Worship as necessary Now I supposed that he by designation of Time had meant the special Time there designed a weekly Sabbath or one day in seven necessarily to be observed and then he might have justified their observation by that Commandment and needed not have reduced it to the fifth Commandment But it seemes I was mistaken for he intended no such thing Hear what he says The difference is very conceiveable betwixt time or times generally considered for Gods service p. 262. n. 6. and this or that particular time The meaning is that sometime is necessary by that Commandment but the particular designation is at the Churches disposing the former belongs to the fourth Commandment the latter to the fifth See but how liberal the Doctor is to God 1. That God should have some time assigned for his service is of the very law of nature and so much of morality there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly Sabbath in the fourth Commandment Some time why some time is of the Law of Nature for the Doctor to eat his breakfast in as much as he can do nothing without some time and this is all the morality the great School-man and the Doctor his Symmists allow to the fourth Commandment which would have been moral or rather natural had there never been any fourth Commandment placed in the Decalogue But seeing God is Lord of us and all our time it had been fitter to have said All our time was due to God for his service except some time be allowed by him as necessary for our worldly business Besides this some time to be assigned for Gods service is not said to be designed by God in particular but onely that some time must be assigned that is by the Church which is poorly begged as afore And this is the Helena for which they so much contend and no marvel for if they can but get this granted that the power of designation of the necessary sufficient Time for Gods service a thing
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
then they are either both Religious Feasts and parts of Worship of humane institution and both unlawful or if they be both but circumstances of Worship they are nothing to the purpose which is of uncommanded Worship not of uncommanded Circumstances of Worship And that they went beyond their commission in making it an annual Religious Feast I hinted by saying that neither Solomon nor Zerubbabel did make theirs so for ought we read n. 14. Here sayes he are the Symptomes again of a desperate cause that fain would catch at some supports but is forsaken of all His evidences are all too short 1. That Judas c. ordain'd it should be kept thus from year to year is partly true but not evident they kept it thus that is as a Religious Feast but in mirth and gladness or if they did the question is which the Doctor must not beg whether they did well or no the Negative whereof is proved above 2. It 's not evident it was so observed as a Religious Feast by the Jews in Christs time it might be as a civil Feast 3. Nor is it evident that though Christ was present in the Temple at the Feast time he approved and confirm'd it If it was onely a civil Feast it is nothing to the purpose though he approved it as he did the wedding Feast John 2. If it was a Religious Feast and so made a part of Worship Christ would not approve it because they that did so institute or so observe it went beyond their commission As for those learned men that interpreted it of Solomons or Zerubbabels Dedication p. 280. n. 15 as they certainly erred in so doing as I proved so they mistook in making of them annual for the reason by me given they might make an extraordinary day of thanksgiving for some special mercy as a day of Humiliation for some judgement felt or feared for then God calls to those duties but to make either of them Annual and perpetual I desire to see their commission And this may answer the Doctors demand n. 16. Supposing those two were never observed but once why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often or annually If the first offended not by being super statutum how could the second or hundreth repetition render it criminous I shall but demand of him supposing Jehoshaphat in an exigent called and made a solemn day of Humiliation why might he not have made it annual to posterity if the first offended not how the annual repetition of it Answer one and answer both The resolution is given above A Magistrate may upon a special occasion appoint a Feast or Fast but to make those dayes perpetually Religious Feasts or Fasts he hath no commission And if he make a civil Feast perpetuall it 's nothing to our debate Let not the Doctor snarle at this answer I shall boldly say n. 17. if King Lucius never so long ago or any other King had kept Christmas day or Good-friday as Religious and parts of Worship as Papists do now and the Doctor with them I should have written Triplicem Diatriben against them as now I do against the Doctor But if he had made them no more then Circumstances of Worship I should never have used my pen against him That Christ was present at the Feast as a Feast n. 18. is also begged but nor is nor can be proved the text says not he was at the Feast Vide Junium contr 3. l. 4 a. 17. an 6. Pelican in 1 Mac. 4. but Jesus walked in the Temple Now take the Doctors inferences or Interrogations Was not that an evidence of Christs approbation Jesus walked in the Temple ergo he approved the Festival take another like it Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at Pentecost ergo he approved and confirmed that Festival after Christ had abolished it and then adde would Paul have been present at an unlawful superstitious detestable feast c. and never have reprehended it so the Doctor argues Christ was at the Feast ergo if unlawful he would have reprehended it But he doth not reprehend it ergo he approved it But first let him not beg Christ was at it as a Religious Feast 2. Let him remember his own Rule There is small virtue in an argument from Scripture Negativè p. 244. n. 12. 3. Nor was it any more scandalous for Christ to be in the Temple at the time of the Feast then for Paul and other Apostles to be there at Pentecost and other times when Temple and Festivals were voided by Christs death If I had made such loose inferences how would the Doctor have insulted He cannot but know that my answer is made by very learned men over whom the Doctor would not thus triumph n. 20. p 28. I could now return him his own words a little inverted What if Jesus walked in the Temple on the Feast day doth it therefore follow that he approved c. This is a new kinde of arguing still c. Marriage n. 21. he says might be approved to be Religious If he would engage in a new controversie This indeed if proved would help to countenance his Virginity or Caelibate to be Religious and a part of Worship as Papists make it But why Religious because there are Prayers and Sacrament c. at the Celebration of it But this might turn all Civil Feasts into Religious when those or some of those services are premised to them Yea our ordinary meals when Prayers for a blessing before and Praises after are used would be then turn'd into Religious Feasts But he says The onely difference between a Civil and a Religious Feast is that in the one the publick services of the Church some or all of them are used adding Festival diet also whereas the other is made up onely of the latter But enough of this afore ad p. 277. n. 1. His question then is easily answered n. 22. Can the services of the Church being added make that criminous which was innocent before make that which was but civil before sacrilegious and impious That was not the question but whether the services of the Church make a civil Feast Religious And whether beside Superstition and Will-worship Riot and revellings do not pollute his most sacred Festival This rarity the Doctor was acquainted with before but he would forget it to give me a slur in the eyes of his Reader For the Feast of Purim Hest 9. There are many answers given by learned men 1. That it was a civil Feast which appears probable by the text they made it a day of Feasting and Joy c. without any mention of Religious services as I said above see ad p. 277. n. 1. But the Doctor instead of demonstrating will needs suppose p. 282. n. 24. That a day of rest of assembly of feasting and gladness sending of portions such as in a sacrifical Feast will to any unpartial Reader pass for an indication of
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