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
I dare not be so confident as he is to boast in a manner That this hath been the onely aim of all hitherto publisht by him and so fully satisfied in himself thereof that he doubts not to approve it to any that can make question of it What even to God himself Is not the heart deceitful above all things Did not Paul think he aimed at Gods glory in persecuting the Truth Do not the Advocates of Rome confidently pretend the same end with him in propagating their Errors and Superstitions Is not the Doctor himself a man animal gloriae Does not much learning and knowledge puff up and cause the owners to start up new marks of self-reputation and vain-glory But this I can freely grant That in such Doctrines as these before us which have immediate influence upon practice it is charity to endeavour the disabusing of all and not to suffer any fruitful and noxious Errour upon my neighbour which if my heart deceive me not was one ground of my undertaking his three Treatises 8. As for his Discourse of Infant-Baptism both what he hath written and what he intends to publish more I shall wish it good speed but I fear it will little prevail with his adversary who is tenacious of Scripture evidence but little moved by Customes of the Church either Jewish or Christian And his way of proving it waving the Scripture grounds whence it may fairly be deduced may tend to weaken those Arguments of Scripture and in the end may serve to strengthen Traditions wherein the Scripture is silent And this I fear was the Doctors Design in his first Quaere for Resolving Controversies 9 He does very well to wish the Reader the ease of a spectator that it may be his lot to live peaceably and quietly with all men But I am sure this will not be long of him who does what he can to give some of his Readers my self and some others the labour of some moneths if not years if our Replies be prolonged to the measure of his Answers wherein how ambitious soever they be of Peace it is violently wrested from them by his drawing out the Saw of Contention by multitude of words 10. That he hath fortified himself with what patience I know not for the present undertaking is visible enough by the bulk of his Book which will make it but little supportable to his Readers For though he have not transcribed the several Sections of my Diatribe's which had been equal and fair to have done but rather omits to take notice several times of four or five leaves together where it was too hot or too heavy yet hath he poured out a flood of words as the Sepia her inbie stuff to delude the Fisherman to drown a poor little Tract of fourteen with well nigh forty sheets of paper If I should hold proportion in my Reply the volume will swell so big that we may write upon it Quis legethaec Onely this may be added That as if he wanted employment to set himself on work and to trouble his Reader he catches at every little oversight See his Superst sect 32. intention or extention whether of my self or the Printers as for instance sometimes he complains of Figures too many or too few sometimes the mistake of a Letter Intention for Intension c. whereof I shall give him an account in due time by shewing the same mistakes in his own saying onely now It becomes not so grave a Doctor to catch flies having so much greater work to do 11. Lastly This I thought good to give the Reader notice of That the Doctor hath obscured the business by a new obstruse method of answering both concealing my particular Sections which he might easily have followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I did his and also devising a new method of Chapters Sections Numbers that his Reader must needs be put to much trouble to finde out mine and more to compare them with his Whereas if he had followed me Section by Section as I did him every thing had been visible in its place and easier to judge of I shall not trouble the Reader to go seek for Chapter Section Number in his discourse but onely point him to the page and number where he may readily finde what is excepted to Onely first I am engaged to follow him in his Chapter that concerns my Title Page for that hath not escaped his censure and then that which takes notice of my Preface and with all due speed to come to his Animadversions upon my particular Diatribe's 2. Of my Title pages 1. HE spake afore in his Preface of my little partiality in examining his Tracts pag. 1. n. 1. but himself is more scrupulous in examining my very Title Pages and the Scriptures themselves by me prefixed are called to Account for standing there especially that of Col. 2.4 8. as intended for an Antidote against that Philosophy c. which Paul forewarns men there to take heed of To which I shall onely say that I see no reason why it might not be as lawful for me to set this Scripture before my Tract of Superstition as for him to set the very same Scripture after his Tract of Superstition for so it is Take heed that no man deceive you with vain words no doubt intended for a Antidote against Philosophy c. And what unkindness to Num. 2. and jealousie of Phylosophy I shewed therein was the very same which himself shewed in his yea the same which Saint Paul then had amongst his Colosians Not I suppose the Gnosticks Divinity who were not then hatched but that Phylosophy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of False Apostles risen newly out of the Sects of Phylosophers whom the Divel stirred up to corrupt Religion with partly Phylosophycal notions and partly Judaical genealogies and Fables as almost all Interpreters besides himself do understand those texts by him cited n. 3 pag. 2. And how conveniently this text was accommodated to any to all my discourses will be discerned by my answer to his 4 questions 1. The text had no relation to Gnostick principles and therefore none of theirs are charged upon any of his Tracts But enticing words and subtle perswasions with Phylosophycal notions and reasons wherewith many say the Doctor is as well furnished as any man may there be found 2. Thereupon it is not charged upon him as Heretical or Heathenish or as Gnosticisme to maintain the celebration of Christs Nativity to have nothing criminous in it But this is charged upon him To make that day more holy and a part of worship as some with the Doctor have done and is not yet denied in all this discourse of his is justly censurable as criminous either under the Head of Superstition or Will-worship or both 3. No blameless Institutions of the Church no not of Rome it self are charged by any that I know for Despoiling of Christians or Sacriledges keeping them within Scripture bounds But
for the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Vulg. Lat. and others must signifie an excess So much of that Section Section 23 24. The second Inconsequence he sayes is this That the use of Ceremonies or Rites in the Worship of God if not distinctly prescribed c. THis I said I believed was a mistake but rather thus That what Rite c. is made a part of Worship c. is superstitious Now sayes he This is brief p. 77. n. 1. but very considerable and might well make an end of this debate between the Diatribist and me 'T is the yielding me the whole cause and I have no more to contend for but onely peace n. 3. But then why did he say just now The question must be set not of Vncommanded Worship but of Ceremonies c. And he being certified of this my sense long ago why hath he contended thus long about nothing to violate that pretended peace Do I or any of our Divines say that Vncommanded Rites c. are superstitious unless they be made parts of Worship c. Yes he would perswade me that I know some who condemne uncommanded Rites as superstitious p. 77. n. 2. because super statutum such as kneeling at the Eucharist Cross in Baptisme c. Truly I can safely profess I know none that do condemn those as superstitious but that they conceived them to be made by some parts of Worship He should have done well to name some of them That he will by and by but first he askes Why then did he undertake the confutation of the Tract of Superstition which he must know intended no more then this c. But I believe he intended more than this in that Tract viz. to plead secretly for some Vncommanded Worship which he newly made the onely matter of contest between us Yet if he will needs know the reasons of my undertaking that Tract these they were 1. To vindicate the truth from his interpolutions and obscurations in Thesi of the full sense of the word Superstition 2. Because I saw he pleaded for Vncommanded Worship as well as Circumstances c. 3. Because in Hypothesi I saw he makes some of his Rites c. parts of Worship as his Festival in particular which yet elsewhere he calls but a Circumstance of Worship These were some of my reasons if I have any more he shall hear them anon But though I know none that condemne Vncommanded Rites or Ceremonies as superstitious c. yet he may know some p. 78. n. 5. Who have abstained from the use of some Ceremonies meerly upon this score because commanded by their Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors I fear this is as he calls such charges a calumny They were conscientious godly men and gave all due Honour and obedience to their Superiors in all Indifferent things and that they should abstain from some Ceremonies meerly upon this score because Commanded c. is to me incredible They might and did abstain from some Ceremonies as too many and burthensome but especially as they esteemed them to be made parts of Worship which they have I think proved some of them to be The Doctor himself condemns the number and burdensomeness of them and as made new sorts of Worship and so they are agreed and pity it is he and they should fall out again But he will break the peace what ever it cost him Instead of naming those men without their consent for that must now be the vilifying them c. as not understanding Christians in the Diatribist censure he will name one upon whom he may pass what judgement he please the Diatribist himself p. 31. Where first he hath these words If men may judge what are fit for number and wholesomness every after-comer may think himself as wise as he that went before till they have loaded the Christian above the Jew 2. That the Learned Chamier c. How will he hence prove his calumny against me and learned Chamier glad I am of so good company Why thus If the objection be because men are Judges of the number c. as they are when they command then they that abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies upon this score most abstain because commanded by lawful Authority Oh the Doctors conscience Do any men abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies it is from Uncommanded Worship at least as they suppose He hath therefore varied the question And if he had but looked back to the former page of mine p. 29. he had found that which might have silenced all this vain and false discourse There I say If men or any number of men may be competent Judges in the Worship of God in the Worship not in the Circumstances of Worship will not the wisdom and wit of man expatiate here and grow wanton But if we extend it to his Ceremonies are not my words every way true Does not long experience of all ages make it evident that the Wisdome and Wit of men hath herein grown wanton Let the Church of Rome be the instance have not they loaded the Christian above the Jew and the * See p. 38. Greek Church as much And I retort it upon the Doctor If the Judges of Ceremonies for number and wholesomness have such large unquestionable Authority to appoint what Ceremonies they shall judge most useful most for edification and most agreeable to the analogy of faith As he asserts they have of Fest s 9. Then the Judges of the next age having the very same power with their predecessors may add as many more and the next after them as many more as they shall think useful to those ends till they have made the number great and burthen intollerable This consequence is unavoidable upon his Antecedent It therefore concerns him as well as me to expedite himself out of this snare How shall this be done to free us both I conceive one of these wayes 1. That the power of the Church reaches onely to Circumstances of Worship respecting Order and Decency and then as any Wise-man can easily determine them by the Light of Reason as Time Place Gesture in Worship so they will be very Few and cannot well be Multiplied being the same or like in all ages of the Church And this I think is most suitable to the Simplicity of Gospel Worship 2. Or else that if the Church take upon her to appoint new Ceremonies above what the Scripture holds out she makes them parts of Worship as the Church of Rome does all her Ceremonies and some did some of ours which is unlawful And this was the opinion of those who abstained from our Ceremonies that they were made parts of Worship and therefore unlawful These things satisfie me If they do not please the Doctor let him take his own way to expedite himself Sure if he were but constant to himself and did not confound Circumstances and Ceremonies putting one for another as if they were the same he might remember
is the Judgement of Scripture and the best Divines That said I which the Scriptures of the Old Testament call Additions the New calls Superstition Will-worship c. But I must not scape so n. 9. In those few words named last there are many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the New Testament called Doctrines He cuts of my words I said Doctrines Traditions of men and so they are Matth. 15.6.9 By your Tradition opposed to the Commandment of God and In vain do they worship me teaching Doctrines the Commandments of men He flies to his old Muse Their teaching their own Traditions for Doctrines is adding them to the Scripture c. But then is it not evident 1. that their Doctrines and Traditions were Additions to the word 2. That these Doctrines concerned the worship of God and so Additions to the Rule of worship in vain do they worship me and are not these Additons excesses what sense then is there in his new coin'd gloss Doctrines thore simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition was made What means he that Doctrines signifies the Scripture for to that the Addition was made so he sayes Adding them to the Scriptures what their own Traditions Then their Doctrines were added to the Scripture but were not Scripture and if not Scripture Additions to the Scripture 2. But my next infirmity is that I say Those Additions are called Will-worship The contrary whereof he sayes is proved in the Treatise of Will-worship I shall not anticipate the place All I say now is but this If it be Will-worship to devise new sorts of worship and to offer them to God for worship as the Doctor confesses it is pag. See p. 10. n. 11. p. 15. n. 24. 96. n. 6. Then those Additions may well be called Will-worship and such Will-worship may very well be called an Addition to the Rule of worship 3. This is yet another of my mistakes That additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New Testament called Superstition I desire he would shew me one such place for my concordance will not afford it me Let him not evade by those words Called Superstition That is in so many words and I will shew many places where the thing is apparant that Superstition is an Addition to the word and Additions to the word are Superstition But in stead of all I shall produce his own words Sect. 46. of Superst To affirm God to command when he doth not is Superstition under the notion of nimiety or excess because that man addes to the commands of Christ Which place will shortly come to be considered He sayes Those Athenians Act. 17.22 sure p. 23. n. 10. never medled with and so added not to the true rule of worship any otherwise then as all that abandon it adde to it live by some other false rule and minde not that and if they are for so doing to be stiled adders to the rule of worship adulterers are so in like manner and so every sin in the world is Superstition This is a strange gloss 1. Do not Idolatres Polytheists such as these Athenians were meddle with and adde to the rule of worship surely then none in the world do Is it not a moral Law written in the hearts of all men though blotted much that God alone is to be worshipped do not they that worship other Gods with or without him meddle with and adde to this rule of worship 2. Does it become the Doctors Learning and Divinity to make adulterers and so every sinner in the second Table to be with them afore stilled Superstitious when worship and so Superstition is onely in the first Table let the Reader judge Against my second proof exception is taken p. 23. n. 12. 1. Because I use the same medium as in the former proposition An heavy charge as if the Doctor did not know that one medium may prove several propositions The question is whether it proves the present proposition or no 2. Then he undertakes to put my argument into form but that I refuse and renounce his whole Syllogisme as none of mine upon this ground because he hath changed the question from uncommanded worship to uncommanded ceremonies and then playes his feats onely I shall remind him what he grants in his proposition 1. That worshipping of the Daemons is an excess opposite to Religion ergo Superstition is an excess 2. So also is the worshipping the true God after an undue and unlawful manner an excess ergo Superstition is of larger extent then the worshipping of Daemons which both the Doctor seems to deny Now I shall put my argument into form If profaneness the one extreme of Religion he a defect of Religion then Superstition the other extreme is an excess of Religion but the first is true and cannot be denied ergo If the Doctor did not intend to decline the force of this proof and to make a diversion to his Reader he would not have started a new Hare that himself might escape My next proof was from the Doctors own concessions p. 24. n 13. See p. 227. c. the numb 13. twice where he first espies a Numeral fault a figure of 4. twice Whether this was mine or the Printers fault he hath no cause to complain having 6. for 5. But that 's a trivial excursion yet ordinary enough First the Doctor grants Superstitiosus may denote such an excess an excess of Religion n. 16. What excess in Religion the super statutum every addition 1. Every uncommanded circumstance or ceremony in the worship of God thus he must mean if constant c. No such matter but every Addition of worship supra statutum above the command of God The question was of worship it self from the beginning not of Circumstances of worship If Superstitious signifie such an excess will it any thing help the Doctor to say so did Religiosus sometime signifie too Yes 1. Superstitio and Religio were among Heathens the * They were not the same see ad p. 70 n. 1. But one a vice the other a vertue same and 2. All such excesses are not culpable in their opinion If they once did signifie excesses in Religion and culpable it matters not what their opinions after were who were ill Judges of Superstition and Religion And what ever Religiosus may signifie let the Doctor shew us any Protestant Divine that ever took Superstitio or Superstitiosus in a good sense But what is the meaning of those words n. 17. My pretensions in that place were onely this that Superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess Does he mean that Superstition never in any Authors signifies a criminous excess That he cannot say or that all Authors do not take it for a criminous excess the words may bear both senses that 's too dilate for the Doctor to affirm It 's enough for us if in
Doctor with that he sayes The Apostle does not speak of Commands but Doctrines Whereas I say he speaks of Commands as well as Doctrines both the words are here commands I say not of the Magistrate that I disclaim as well as he but of False-Teachers See my 4. s and his own acknowledgment p. 104. n. 1. who laid those Abstinencies upon their Disciples as their Doctrines and Commands but were nothing but Traditions and commands of men who had no Authority in point of Worship so to impose upon the people of God and then all his labour in the 3. and 4. numb is utterly lost What the meaning of Commands here is and whether the same with Doctrines as the Doctor sayes we shall consider anon But one thing must here be remembred he sayes That the Seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick Hereticks p. 103. n. 5. This is once afore said by him and many times more hereafter I know not well how oft I shall here speak to it once for all and but point at it when ever it comes again 1. The Gnostick Hereticks were not yet hatched when Paul writ this Epistle to the Colossians I finde no newes of them till the time of Basilides Carpocrates and Valentinian who all lived in the second Century about 120. or 130. These were the first that cal'd themselves Gnosticks as men of greater knowledge then any others So Iraeneus lib. 1. Of Heresie c. 34. Ex his c. from these Basilides Carpoor c. Who were formerly cal'd Sinoniani the multitude of the Gnosticks did arise So Tertull. Advers Valentin Atque ita insolescentes doctrinae Valentiniorum in sylvas jam exoleverunt Gnosticorum Upon which words Rhenanus thus Valentiniani superbo nomine se Gnosticos appellabant Horam principem facit Irenaeus Valentinianum I know how the Doctor will evade by saying The name indeed began then but the Doctrines were the same with those of Nicholas and Simon c. who lived in the Apostles times So Epiphan and Austin seem to say But that 's but an equivocation or evasion to say the Gnosticks were in that time and meant here by the Apostle because they suckt some of their poyson from those Hereticks Saint Paul therefore could not properly intend the Gnosticks 2. This is Estius a Papists gloss upon 1 Tim. 6.20 Oppositions of science falsly so called a fitter text to be applied to the Gnosticks then this of ours Quamvis credi potest Gnosticorum nomen non statim cum haeresi emersisse sed aliquantò post tamen Apostolorum temporibus rem ipsam jam tum à Simone Nicolao originem accepisse certum est But in that sense the Gnosticks may be said to have their Original from the ancient Baalites and Heathens who were as abominable in their filthy worships of their Gods as the Gnosticks lightly could be 3. The best Commentators on this place never dream'd of the Gnosticks but generally say the Apostle opposes himself against two Sects then troubling the Church First some Philosophers turn'd Christians who brought in Philosophical speculations at these he strikes verse 8. and 18. in Worship of Angels Secondly some Judaizing Christians who would keep up the Ceremonial Law with the Gospel against these are the 16.20 21 22. verses In particular the 21 verse hath clear reference to the Abstinencies formerly commanded the Jews but now abolished by Christ Touch not taste not c. as some say However there is little or no colour to bring in the Gnosticks here who though they agreed with others in abstaining from such meats and drinks yet the chief poyson of that Sect was in abandoning and vilifying of Marriage and in other abominable filthinesses for which they had not the least pretence from the Jewes with whom the Doctor sayes they joyn'd to abstain from Marriage that being never prohibited to the Jewes as some meats and drinks were yet the Doctor speaks hereafter See p. 109. n. 3. n. 10. as if the Apostle here intended them that forbad Marriage as the Gnosticks after did And I do a little wonder how he mist a Criticisme in the 21. ver Ne attigeris touch not that is Marry not so the Gnosticks said for which he had a fair text of Scripture 1 Cor. 7.1 It 's good for a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to touch a woman that is not to Marry So in the text here Touch not first Marry not Taste not first such or such a meat c. But enough of this at present for it will often meet us again For the rest in this his third Section it will come to be condered in a fitter place onely saying now That a shew of wisdom is applyable to * No justifiable humility p. 112. n. 10. And austerity is of the same kinde there humility and the rest as well as to Will-worship all being equally naught and condemned Sect. 4. That we have not mistaken the Doctors meaning will appear by that which he addes c. THe chief business in this Section is to speak to the instance of David appointing the Levites to serve from the age of 20. years whereas God by Moses had appointed it but from 25. p. 105. n. 6. The Doctor sayes he made this alteration upon prudential reasons as a King not as a Prophet or by inspiration as my places of Scripture import 'T is true there are prudential reasons given for what he did but prudence of man is not sufficient to alter the institutions of God It 's this prudence that hath undone the Church that men will be wiser then God in altering and adding to the Rule of his Worship See 2 Chron. 29.25 for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets Let the Doctor look once more upon the text 1 Chron. 28.12 13. In the 12. verse it 's said David gave to Solomon his Son the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit c. and 13. vers Also for the courses of the Priests and the Levites and all the work of the service of the house of the Lord. If the Doctor saw not this he was negligent for I pointed to the place if he saw them he willfully winked against the light resolv'd belike to maintain what ever he once sayes right or wrong Sect. 5. The full importance of the words vers 22. he says is this That when those abstinencies are imposed c. COncerning the sense of those words p. 107. n. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know no reason why the Dr. should forsake the Interpretation of almost all Interpreters unless because he loves to be singular He says the Apostle speaks not of the meats but of the commands of abstaining I granted this might be the sense but yet it might well be rendered as our Translation and all but the Doctor do Which all are to perish with the using that is That now being out-dated they perish
teaching consisted This might be true of some false teachers that preached up the Ceremonial Law after it was abolished as still obliging by divine precept but there was no colour for the Pharisees to pretend to a divine precept in their new Traditions being known not to be commanded by God in the Jewish Law and therefore they call'd them onely Traditions of the Elders They being men of great repute for knowledge and piety did invent and then by their own example commend some new wayes of worshipping God and then by their Authority they had got in their Disciples hearts as pious and devout men did lay their own doctrines upon them and they stooped and were subjected to them They did not therefore so much as pretend them to be the Will and Commandments of God sure our Saviour would not have been silent in such a blasphemy but onely that they would be pleasing and acceptable to God as being more then he commanded which is the opinion of all formal Hypocrites in their Will-worship And I cannot but wonder the Doctor should hold our that they pretended their Doctrines to be Divine precepts when he makes them differ from the Karraim in this that they transcended the Law in their Worship in uncommanded Worship Now to say their Worship or doctrines of Worship were Divine precepts was to derogate from that height of excellency which themselves and the Doctor conceited to be in them Let him confider it But to convince him the more I could tell him what Calvins judgement was of that text Matt. 15.9 Omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic damnari minimè dubium est but the Doctor will easily slight his judgement I shall therefore give him the gloss of a learned Papist whom he more regards It is Tolet on Luc. 11. Annotat. 84. The Priests had brought in many novel things though Moses had with great terrour threatned them not to adde any thing of which number of additions were those washings There was a double fault 1. The innovation it self was no slight fault c. 2. Another was their Superstition The Pharisees had put in those washings not for any natural or civil cleanliness but as pertaining to Religion who so did contemn them were judged to offend against Gods Worship and whoso did observe them seemed chiefly to regard Gods Worship in them But this was in no wise lawful c. for Christ rejected these washings as superstitious Mark 7. In vain do they Worship me teaching the doctrines and precepts of men i. e. such things as men set up of themselves against the Commandment of God Not as the Doctor such things which though they were the doctrines and commandments of men yet were imposed as Commandments of God Judge Reader which is the better Interpreter But supposing not yielding they did hold them out as Divine precepts that I said was an abuse of them yet the fault might be they made them parts of Worship that would make them more destructive And this our Saviour particularly chargeth upon the Pharisees In vain do they Worship me They made their Traditions to be parts of Worship I asked whether placing Worship in the observation of those ordinances though not imposed as Gods Commands were not an abuse of them to destruction The Doctor answers as a man amused by asking me p. 111. n. 8. What I mean by Worship if such Worship as a man may justly prescribe or practice ceremonies perfectly lawful or more what is sure to be accepted c. 't is certain it were no abuse Here Reader observe 1. That the Doctor grants a man may justly prescribe and then practise his own prescribed Worship 2. That he calls Ceremonies Worship which hitherto he call'd onely Circumstances of Worship But he knows I mean it of Worship what then If he mean the commanded Worship of God then his question implies a contradiction for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in that is taught as a command of God or else it were not Gods prescribed Worship which yet it is supposed to be I mean it not of commanded Worship it were ridiculous indeed to ask such a question but of uncommanded Worship devised of his own will against the will of God may not a man devise false Worship and yet not pretend it to be imposed by Divine precept Surely Papists do so in many of their Will-worships holding them our not as Divine commands but as things very pleasing to God and rewardable by him c. Upon this my question falls to which he sayes nothing but gives as strange a reason for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in that is taught as a command of God else it were not Gods prescribed Worship Which is proved false by the former instance and begs the question That no man places Worship in any thing but he must teach it as a Command of God which I believe the Doctor will contradict by his own practice placing the Worship of God in some things and yet denying it to be a Command of God I shall take another instance from himself in the next number n. 9. He falsly supposes abstinence from marriage to be meant in Col. 2.23 See p. 107. n. 3. n. 10. It is certain abstinence from marriage may be lawfully practised by him that can bear it all the error is in imposing it on others c. Suppose now a man does not impose it upon others yet places the Worship of God in it to Worship God by it as Papists do whether the Doctor do so we shall hear anon I would ask whether this be not an error to place Worship in that which God doth not command Whether Col. 2.23 be a setting down the abuse and defining wherein it consists or no shall be tryed hereafter Sect. 6. Yet let us hear wherein the Doctor places the danger c. WHat ever is repeated in this Section by the Doctor is fully answered in the last and the Doctors notion I still say is singular and his own That the false teachers held out their doctrines as Commandments of God which no Interpreters of the place do touch upon I shall onely observe what Estius notes upon the text answering this question Seeing the Apostle speaks here of Legal Rites instituted by God how doth he call them the precepts and doctrines of men which in the Scripture are taken in the evil sense as also are the Traditions of men viz. those things which are invented and delivered by an humane sense and spirit He gives divers answers 1. Some took the place to be meant of the superstitious precepts of the Gentile Philosophy or Simonian School so did the Doctor p. 110. n 5. at least in part But this exposition is refuted For those precepts were Jewish Touch not c. as those afore Let no man judge you in meat or drink which without doubt was spoken of Jewish observations 2. Others answer thus Those Institutions of the Mosaical law being
understands that my main designe in undertaking this work was primarily to manifest the Superstition and Will-worship in the ordinary observation of the chief Festivals and the rest and secondarily to justifie the abolition of them against which the Doctor hath so much declamed For which end I took in as I said at first his other two Tracts of Superstition and Will worship to make a clear discovery of that which I saw the Doctor had clouded what those two Crimes were which beside the Riot were charged upon his Festival that so the Application of them to the Festival in particular might be the more easie and obvious to every intelligent Reader For if Superstition and Will-worship be as I have proved them to be from the Testimonies of Orthodox Divines and of the Doctor himself and they criminous And then the Observers of the Festivals be proved guilty of those two crimes and the Doctor as deep as any which onely remain to be made good I shall venture to make all indifferent but judicious Readers yea and the Doctor himself in his sedate and impartial judgement both witnesses and judges of my conclusion If the Doctor himself shall lend me both my premises even sometimes totidem verbis I hope he will not be so uncivil or unnatural as not to own the conclusion as a childe of his own begetting though it hath been several times brought home and laid at his door but he hath gone in and out and took no notice of it I shall once more lay it before him But first some other business takes us up to be briefly dispatched rather by way of strictures then a set and continued discourse That the custome of a Church in things indifferent is somewhat considerable I denied not p. 231. n. 3. But when humane customes are degenerated into superstition and made Will-worship that custome though never so ancient is not to be pleaded He may see that my scope was onely this to beat down degenerated customes pretended onely to be ancient and Apostolical and withal to retort the argument intended by him more sutably to the text alluded to The Apostles and prime Church had no such custome as his Festival therefore they are contentious who plead for the continuancy of a custome so degenerated Whence the Doctors testimonies are indeed ex abundanti needless and superfluous except to shew his reading That Christians should comply with the customes of the places whither they come That is n. 4. c. while they are in things indifferent and neither burthenous by their number nor vitiated by the former abuses But he knows that Augustine in his time which was early to us complain'd of the yoke of Ceremonies introduced and wisht them abolished and so much for that Section How those Heathen usages p. 233. n. 3. that stuck so long to the Festival came in or when it is not * See n. 8. worth the while to debate it would be a better service for the Advocates of the Festival to study how to get them out which I fear they have not much troubled themselves withal Sure we are many customes came in in compliance as with the Jews on one side so with Heathens on the other I know he remembers well enough who said Ita bellè Ethnicos in hac re Polydor. Virg. de Invent. Rer. l. 6. c. 8. p. 234. n. 7. ut in nimis multis aliis aemulamur Though neither I nor he can exactly tell when that compliance first began Suppose that which the Doctor sayes be true At the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian and so some others from the heathen also 't is possible and imaginable But it s as true which he addes they were not taught them by Christianity Christian Religion taught them no such things nor intended their continuance but yet they were continued a long time Hence his argument for Infant Baptisme of that I think he means it also from the custome of the Jewes to Baptize is not constringent to a gain-sayer I believe he findes it so in his conflict with Master Tombs for how easie were it to answer as I remember he does it was the custome of the Jewes to Circumcise after Christianty began to keep the old Sabbath what 's that to Christians And if my judgement were of any worth with the Doctor I should make bold to tell him my conjecture in this case It s very probable that at the first beginning of Christianity such things or customes as the Sabbath the Paschal and Pentecost Festivals might adhere to the Christian though not taught it by Christianâ—y that they should be continued as Christian Holy-days and so some Heathenish customes in like manner from the first plantation of the Faith But then I would infer 1. That the Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost called after Easter and Whitsuntide were no Apostolical constitutions but rather charitable condescensions of the Apostles and after Planters to win the Jews to the Christian Religion But not as taught them by Christianity nor to continue any more then the old Sabbath or Circumcision c. Which by degrees vanished Else I would ask why was not the old Sabbath perpetuated in the Church Christian aswel as Easter and Whitsuntide there being more to be said for it in the Apostolical practice and other wayes then is or can be produced for those Fostivals as I have elsewhere said 2. I would also infer that Festivals were continued or exchanged for some Heathenish ones as Christmas for the Saturnalia to win them the better to the faith not to be continued longer then the Faith was well fettled But such is the mischief of humane policies in Religion that ill usages once brought in can seldom or hardly be gotten out again 3. The Doctors argument is as little constringent as mine that those usages must needs be brought in at the first conversion of a nation which might come in by degrees The time and Authour of our conversion p. 235. n. 1. is as uncertain as the former and confessed by the Doctor to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business of Festivals And therefore I shall no longer draw the Sawe of controversie therein but leave the Doctor to his own conjectures for they are no better and proceed to something of more concernment And that is about the institution and observation of Easter by which standard all other Festivals are to be rated as the Doctor says p. 243. n. 10. which if we may believe him was instituted or at least observed by the Apostles themselves The trial whereof is referred p. 241. n. 2. not to Scripture which an Apostolical institution which is acknowledged elsewhere to be Divine might justly expect but to Tradition out of most uncertain Histories unfit to build our faith upon Eusebius who lived in the fourth Centurie a great distance from the
when they are made parts of worship imposed as necessary held as efficacious as Gods own Ordidinances or more strictly exacted than Divine precepts c. Then they will prove to be Despoilings of Christians and sacrilegious being but Tradition of men in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks 4. Rational probable demonstrative discourse is not in the least averred to be deceit and beguiling which the Doctor uncharitably would have his Reader believe of me not without a secret scorn But then onely as the Apostle intended it when Reason takes upon her to dispute against Religion in Doctrine or worship upon Phylosophycal notions and carnal principles And thus his four questions are answered n. 4. and now I hope I am with his leave qualified to justifie the charitableness of my Title Page and the propriety of my select Scripture and I think no Reader found to question either of them 2. Pag 3. n. 1 The like exceptions are taken to the Scritures put in the Title Pages of the other Tracts and the Latine sentences added thereunto As first that of Matth. 15.8 9. is questioned as not commodiously affixt to the Tract of Will-worship because it speaks of their urging some inventions of their own as under obligation by Divine precept c. Which whether they did or no is under debate the contrary rather appearing in the Text being called the Commandments of men and Traditions of the Elders and falls under consideration more fully hereafter This we are sure of they made those Inventions of men Parts of the Worship of God for that is charged expresly upon them In vain do they worship me c. And in this respect this text is commodiously affixt to the Tract of Will-worship Secondly Gal. 4.9 10. is quarelled for standing before the Discourse of Christmas being restrained to Judaical Sabbaths and Feasts c. and no more applyable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of the Nativity then to the weekly of his Resurrection The text is not restrained onely to Judaical days but extends to any days made holy by men and parts of worship as those Judaical Feasts for certain were Neither can nor will the Doctor say the observation of those Feasts is absolutely unlawful forbidden by that Text as matters of Order or Times of worship for then how can be justifie his Easter c. but onely as they are accounted parts of worship now abolished But wellfare his Good will to the Lords day From the beginning to the end of his Discourse he is very careful to levil and equal the weekly Sabbath the Lords day with his Festivals when he confesses a palpable difference that the Lords day is of Apostolical and so Divine institution when his Christmass is but * An Ecclesiastical constitution pag. 294. n. 8. n. 3. Ecclesiastical Thirdly the Latine sentences cannot escape his Inquisition yet he is forced to dismiss them with a full concession of the main question between us For thus he professes We design no other worship of God upon Christmas day but such as we are sure he hath commanded at all times that of prayer and thanksgiving c. and that the incarnation of Christ was a competent reason to found the custom of commemorating of it after this manner And why should we not now shake hands and agree If this were all the controversie were ended For we have granted often that any day may upon just occasions be set apart and imployed in prayers and thanksgivings c. Will this satisfie the Doctor I doubt not For first this were to villifie and depress his Christmas Festival to any common day when prayers and thanksgivings are tendred 2. This confutes himself who makes and finds other worship of God upon that day making it an Oblation to Christ an Holy day a part of worship as great a sin to labour upon it as on the Lords day c. as was fully charged upon him in that Diatribe which how he will avoid or rather evade we shall take notice hereafter This is the sum of what he hath said to my Title Pages onely he forgot to take notice of one particular See Willw S. 1. the Reverend and learned Doctor viz. my respective Titles given to himself The Reverend and learned Doctor Hammond Doctor Hammond The Doctor all along not one word or title unbeseeming him to receive or me to give But after once or twice giving me my Name his common Title is which some think hath a little scorn in it The Diatribist but for my part This Diatribist often I pass not what he calls me I will not retaliate by calling Him as I might The Accountant c. but shall with due respects give him rather strong reason then the least ill or unbecoming language 3. Of my Preface MY Preface friendly and lovingly intended to shew him the grounds of his mistakes is not very friendly taken but rejected either as false or useless and for a brief return to it I am beseeched to reserve my discourse of causes p. 4. n. 2. till the effects shall be so visible as to call for it I am sorry that I have spent so much labor and love in vain My good will however was to be accepted and acknowledged I took it for granted as well as proved and so others think that I had shewed him his Diseases and Mistakes in the Tracts themselves My method perhaps was not so proper to shew the causes in a Preface which might better have come in a Postscript when the Disease was discovered Let him forgive me this wrong and when he is convinced of his mistakes then consider whether I have not hit upon the causes thereof That he should not discern one misadventure in those discourses is to me very strange when I can shew his acknowledgments of four at least 1. He had said Superst s 12. That Festus had put Jesus under the vulgar notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dead Heros so meaning the worship of him by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being charged by me as a criticisme strained he answers p. 63. n. 7. I shall not because I need not make it a controversie with any yet pretends to give a reason to incline him to that sense Will-wor sect 7. but how unsufficient it is see my Animadversion upon that p. 63. n. 7.2 He rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Col. 2.23 by some real matter of Piety in them or some what of Piety in them which sense he often in this Account would gladly fix upon it But fairly retracts it as false that it is but a shew of wisdom not a reality p. 111. 10. and oft elsewhere see p. 117. n. 10. and my Notes upon that place 3 He had said Will-wor s 27. The main crime that defamed the Pharisees was their proud despising of other men But here p. 171. n. 4. he sayes Hypocrisie was the Pharisees chief