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
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
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
moral or rather spiritual good then the bare caring for the things of the world to please a yoke-fellow 1. This supposes a man that is Marryed cannot be holy in body and spirit and care for the things of the Lord as the unmarryed may which is a dishonour cast upon Gods ordinance of honourable Marriage 2. That a Married man does barely care for the world to please his wife 3. That it is not as morally good for a married man to care for his family and to please his wife as for the unmarried to care to please God when both please God and there need no comparison 4. If Virginity or single life were morally better then Marriage the Apostle neglected the chiefest argument to perswade it the greater reward in heaven as a greater good work for so the Doctor determines this Free-will offering is more commendable acceptable rewardable But not one word of this in all the Scriptures What ever some Ancients and many Papists presume to dictate of an higher glory for Virginity then for Marriage and use this if not as the onely yet as the chiefest perswasive Hear what some of the Ancients who extolled Virginity enough if not too much In laudem Basilii orat 22. to the disparagement of Marriage say 1. Greg. Nazianz. commending the children of Bazil the elder sayes Some of them so used their Marriage that it was no hinderance to them that they might not aspire to an equal glory of virtue with the Virgins That is were as holy in body and spirit and cared for the things of the Lord as much as they Next Saint Chrysost with respect to the reward Ad Hebr. c. 4. orat 7. hath this saying Vse Marriage with meet moderation and thou shalt be the first in the kingdom More might be added but these shall suffice much being spoken to this afore His second argument p. 220. n. 54. against my position was this The best being superlative supposes the positive to be good but if bound to the best that which were onely good were evil This consequence I proved to be naught by an instance and now I adde it follows onely that that which is not the best is less good good I say by indulgence but so far sinful as they are short of perfection All our righteousness n. 55. is as filthy rags said the Prophet and Greg. after him All humane justice if it be strictly judged is injustice He crys out of my inconstancy I said before good works were not evil and now to be injustice And are not both these true They are not evil that is sins as wrought by faith but they are sinful and injustice if strictly judged by the Law said not the Prophet both these in one sentence and Gregory the same What prevarication is this in him Does he not say the same himself in his second answer When he said such a thing is good and another best he never meant that either of them is not convincible by God to have some mixture of evil What said I other then this But he elsewhere sayes more that not onely the best but the lower degrees of good may be sinless That the evil which is or may be and so may not be adherent to it in some other respects being pardoned by God in Christ the lower degree being good an act of obedience to Christs command that which is higher and so better then that may yet be somewhat not commanded and so a Nedabah in a Christian Where he supposes first That it may be sinless in it self though evil may adhere to it in other respects this is expresly affirmed by him p. 223. n. 5. of which anon 2. He also takes for granted that the higher degrees of good are under no command which is disproved above 3. If that Nedabah or work of higher perfection be a part of that mans righteousness it 's abundant righteousness with the Pharisees and the Doctor sure the Prophets Gregories and his own concession will in Gods strict judgement affirm it to be unrighteousness But that 's little less then a contradiction that an act of highest righteousness not under any Law should be judged unrighteousness by a righteous God without a Law to judge it by Let him consider it Sect. 48. The next objection raised by him c. THat we may see how good an expositor of the Law of God the Doctor is his answere to the objection from the first and great Commandment Thou shalt love the Lord thy God p. 221. n. 1. with all thy heart c. is very considerable He affirms That the phrase denoteth onely two things 1. Sincerity of his love to God as opposed to partial divided love 2. The loving him above all other things not admitting any other thing into competition with him or in such a degree of love First I would say that these two are almost both one for what is partial divided love but admitting of some other thing into competition with him and such love is insincere He that loves God sincerely loves nothing in competition with him 2. To love God above all other things is the same with to love nothing in such a degree of love But all this may be done and yet a man may be very short of the perfection of that Commandment To love God with all his heart and the rest And that we may know whence the Doctor learned this Divinity we find it in Bellarm and other Papists one while distinguishing thus God is two wayes loved with all the heart 1. Above all other things sincerely and perfectly that nothing be set above or equalled with the love of God and thus the love of God is under command to us 2. That no vitious cogitation may creep in but that the whole man be taken up with the love of God and this say they is not commanded us in this life Just the same with the Doctor 〈…〉 who agrees fully with them in the first part of the distinction and saying those onely are denoted must also agree with them in the latter Another while they thus distinguish The Commandment may thus be understood that God alone is to be loved and nothing beside him or that nothing be loved against God above God or equally with God c. The first part is not the scope or sense of the Commandment for he presently addes Thou shalt love thy neighbour c. The second part is the same with the first in the other distinction And it is remarkable that these distinctions are used by Papists in the case of venial sins and perfect fulfilling the Law in this life The former of these I observe not the Doctor to assert but the latter he does frequently that a man may fulfill the Law to perfection and that in the lower degrees and attain to perfection above all command But in this exposition of this Great Commandment the Doctor with Papists leaves many Vide Cham. t.
Canon of Faith from John the longest liver of the Apostles but submits to the Western custome and so subjects us to Rome which he so fears and warned me to be ware of I leave these to his resolution and come to consider what he sayes to my arguments against it 1. There is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor ground to found it on p. 244. n. 12 I said there was no ground in Scripture to found it on To which he says nouothing To this he hath three answers 1. There is small virtue in this from Scripture negative As little virtue as there is in this negative argument for me it seemes to be great for himself against me For here n. 17. he pleads thus against the institution of the Lords-day Sure the New Testament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it And again against the use of the fourth Commandment Where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment p. 263. n. 8. And once more p. 281. n. 19. Christ never reprehended the observation of the Feast of Dedication that we read of therefore he approved it But in the case in hand ad hominem I have argued strongly from Scripture negative Will worship is not commanded in Scripture therefore it is unlawful But this Festival with that of the Nativity is made a Will-worship by Papists and the Doctor ergo they are unlawfull and as such have no ground in Scripture 2. Answer The Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the Feast is some be it acknowledged a less weighty ground in Scripture for the observation This word of the Apostle in the judgement of all Interpreters hath nothing to do with his Festival The text and context are also against his gloss which makes it so light that it is not so much as some weight for the observation of it And I having said so much against this gloss in my 31 Section of Fest I wonder he should so confidently produce it here and say nothing to purpose to it in its own place All I shall say now is this that if this be the sense of it which the Doctor begs it hath not onely some but an exceeding weighty ground for the observation of his Festival a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law-giving an institution Divine which he will deny to the Lords-day and proves more then he intended not onely the observation and practice but also institution Apostolical But more of this below 3. Answ The mention of the Lords-day Rev. 1. is some farther ground if it be the annuall then there is a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days The Doctor is happy if all his suppositions might be granted him he knows the place is generally understood of the Weekly-day and what is then become of his clear evidence But hear again If it should be the weekly day yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day It is observable that in all this discourse of Festivals the Doctors great designe is to vilifie if not to nullifie the authority of the Lords day so to exalt above or equal with it his Festivals which if there were no other crime is sufficient to stir the indignation of any truly Religious man Here he does it and again presently n. 17. and afterwards often as I shall note as I pass on But this he here asserts is most incongruous Rather the weekly-day was the foundation of the annual day For first it s said Christ rose on the first day of the week often and thereupon It was designed to be the Christian Sabbath or day of Assemblies but never is it said he rose upon such a day of the moneth or year 2. If the Lords weekly day was not first instituted how came the contest between the Churches whether Easter day should be observed on the Lords-day or on the Jewish day which might and did fall on any other day of the week Tradition sayes that Peter and Paul observed the Festival on the Lords day at Rome does not this suppose the Lords-day to be instituted before the Festival of Easter Saint John and Philip it s said kept it on the Jewish day how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day And let the Doctor remember that his Mother the Church of England as she includes Easter day among the Sundayes making it no otherwise an Holy-day so she founds the Lords-day not upon the annual day but upon the fourth Commandment When she commands this prayer to be said after it Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law But the Doctor will either prove or illustrate what he said As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week As if the fast on Good-friday were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lords-day or humane constitutions were to be a foundation for a Divine institution That the Apostles did expresly repeal those Feasts n. 14. p. 244 hath not he says the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10 Let the Reader turn to the place p. 3. n. 2. and see what he saith to that text all is but this It is peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Feasts but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of the Resurrection Even from the beginning to the end of this account his designe is to slur the lustre of the Lords-day levelling it to his Festivals But first the Apostle speaks indefinitely against observation of days as religious Paulus praecepit sayes Hierom. all beside the Lords day which he had there also established as the day of collection and first of Assemblies for that collection supposes the day before designed instead of the old Sabbath as well at Galatia as among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16.1 Now concerning the collection for the Saints as I have given order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordered ordained to the Churches of Galatia even so do ye upon the first day c. Here 's an Apostolical institution for collections on the Lords day and presupposes the day before appointed in both those Churches 2. It is no wayes probable that the Apostle would cry down Jewish Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost and set up the very same again at the same time as Christian Feasts as I said above If they were abolished as parts of Ceremonial-worship how scandalous might it have been to change onely the name nay the name was not changed in other Churches and set up other Feasts in their stead as parts of Christian Worship for so they would be esteemed if the Apostle had set them up or brought them in The sestimony of Socrates the Historian he eludes by a distinction
he means it thus n. 15. They made no Laws for the observing of Festivals but refers the original of them to custome but the Doctor speaks onely of Apostolical practice so he sayes But first Socrates says nothing of the Apostolical practice but refers it wholly to the custome of several places and people It seemes to me sayes he as many other things were introduced by a custome in divers places so the Feast of Easter by custome in several people had a peculiar different observation Why because none of the Apostles had made any Law concerning it But sure if the Apostles did change it from a Jewish to a Christian Festival and did themselves observe it as exemplary to the Churches they did thereby at first give as good as a Law and make an institution for them to observe And I am perswaded that upon this ground of Apostolical tradition and observation came in all the Superstition in after ages in making them Holy times and parts of Divine Worship c. and they established them as a Law as Socrates said believing them to be Apostolical 2. The truth seemes to me to lie here The Apostles did often frequent the Assemblies of the Jews in the Temple upon their solemnest Festivals as a greater opportunity of fishing in a wide Sea a multitude of people as at Pentecost Acts 2. and again Acts 20 16 Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost for the same reason which custome of the Festivals continuing till the destruction of Jerusalem the Apostles did condiscend to be at them while they lived amongst them Whereupon the following Church seeing this example of their practice took it as a Rule to observe the Feasts especially the Jewish Christians in Asia being tenacious of their old customes and so kep◠the very same day the Jews did which other Churches after the Jews were grown obstinate finding such a custome of the Feast in hatred of the Jews changed into the Lords day as Augustine observes Epist 119 Can. Nicen. de Fest Pasch by Constantines perswasion But see the tenaciousness of men for Traditions of their Fathers The Doctor cares not what he can to weaken or question the Authority of the Lords day to strengthen and stablish his Easter Feast p. 245. n. 17 It will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any other evidence for the weekly Christian Sabbath or Lords day then the custome and practice Apostolical the New Testament hath no where any giving of Law conerning it But sure it will be easie for the Diatribist to manifest a palpable difference between the Lords day and his Easter out of Scriture the best Record beside what is said out of prime Antiquity For 1. We finde the Name there as a day of Christian Assemblies but not a word of Easter 2. We finde the Apostles practice and observation of it but never of Easter 3. We finde grounds in Scripture for the institution or designation of the day but nothing for Easter but rather the contrary prohibition The grounds of the weekly Christian Sabbath it 's well he will allow the Lords-day so honourable a Title he cannot say so much for his Easter Feast and some of his way would have scornfully called it Your Saint Sabbath The grounds I say are these 1. For a solemn day of rest which is a Sabbath we have the fourth Commandment morall in the judgement of its greatest enemies 2. We have it granted that the day must not be less then one in seven yea one day in seven is granted moral in the fourth Commandment by the Doctor * p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week c. himself 3. Christ in Matt. 5. came to stablish and not destroy this Law amongst the rest 4. We have Christian exercises performed on the day beside prayer and preaching and Lords Supper collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day which presupposes the day * That which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so in his 4. Quaer s 94. before designed by Christ or his Apostles All this together amounts to a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or institution And lastly the uniform observation of this day in all ages in all Churches must needs presuppose it to be a Divine Ordination Not one of all these can he truly prove applyable to his Easter Feast Away then with such unworthy comparisons But we shall meet it again ere long And yet Isaid p. 245. n. 19. and say again The observation of Easter hath better Antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical He answers The Apostolical practice being so evident there can be no doubt then the Analogy holding the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian Festival to another will certainly justifie the observation c. The question is not now of the observation of either but the Antiquity so that this was a meer evasion There are histories and traditions and ancients that speak of Easter in the second Centurie but not one word of Christmas and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it which to me is a good evidence there is none And as for Analogy from one Festival to another it holds as well thus If there can be produced neither Apostolical institution nor observation of Easter as a Christian Festival as is probably evinced above then much less is there any ground for the institution or observation of Christmas as an Holy-day But this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main business When I granted the Antiquity of some Festivals in the third or fourth Century might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman Antichristain See adhering to them The Doctor is overjoy'd n. 1. p. 247. and congratulates the unexpected success of his paper But without any cause for it wrought nothing with me being of that opinion before that Rome was not at that time Antichristian But to discover my meaning and to cool his boasting I believe the first Institutors of Festivals had a good Intention to commemorate the mercies of God bestowed on us in Christ making them onely circumstances of Worship though some Superstitions did soon after creep into the observation of them But after ages declining more and more till Antichrist got into the throne those Festivals I meant comparatively had at first nothing of that corruption which after adhered to and overwhelmed them both in their Institution and also in their observation Neither did I mean that the Festivals as they were lately observed by some in England had nothing of the Roman See as now it is corrupted having charged the observation of them by the Dr. and
did frequent the Assemblies on the old Sabbath and it was observed as I remember together with the Lords-day for the four first Centuries yet cast off at last as not Divine And therefore I must profess my dislike of the Doctors proceedings in his plea for Infant Baptisme meerly or chiefly from Tradition of Apostolical practice and in a manner waving * As imperfect wayes of proving it Inf. Bapt. p. 2. n. 1 2. and professing to lay the most weight upon Apostolical practice p. 95 n. 39. that is Tradition of the Church n. 9. the Scriptures whereon all our Divines do found it But this was done to bring in his beloved Easter and Episcopacy so much doated on For the first how well he hath demonstrated it to be derived from the Apostles as a Christian Festival let the Reader judge by what hath been said above For the other of Episcopacy it leads into a new controversie wherein other Learned men are engaged to them I leave it But I cannot pass by another odious comparison betwixt it and the Lords-day Et si non aliqua nocuisset c. He appeals my knowledge Episcopacy hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords-day I do here profess his mistake of my knowledge for I know no such matter and I durst venture my skill to prove It hath if any thing at all not so much much less perfectly and in every respect to be said for it in the Scriptures as the Lords-day But I shall not enter into a new debate But he speaks of a demonstration of Easter to be derived from the Apostles well then he may insult over the Lords day if he can finde a Law in Scripture for it and none for the Lords day n. 7. And that is found by him in 1 Cor. 5.8 Let us keep the Paschal Festivity so he rendered is Fest s 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us keep the Feast here 's an express Law if it be meant of Easter-day as the Doctor would have us believe But against this I brought some Interpretations and Authorities from Ancient and Modern Writers taking it in another sense and I might have brought more but that I would not fill my pages and trouble my Reader when the context clears it from the Doctors gloss If the Doctor did not believe it why did he cite it If he did believe it why doth he so poorly relinguish it For first he slights all those Authorities onely telling us It were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies p. 285. n. 11 Det. of Inf. Bapt. against M. Tombs p. 17. n. 26. Yet elsewhere says The word is by circumstances applied to the Feast of Easter p. 244. n. 12. as some ground in Scripture for the observation Estius with Beza better hits the sense Sicuâ— Judaei fermento abstinebant quamdiu Pascha celibrabant it a vos Christiana perpetuum Pascha agentes semper oporter abstinere à fermento veteris ac pâ—avae conversationis Itaque Epulemur c. In locum But I could bring him one Testimony that he may not well slight who thus glosses that text Paul himself saying that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us the plain meaning of it being this that the Jewish Passover being abolished we have now the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ substituted in the stead of it Not the Jewish Paschal Feast being abolished Easter Feast is substituted instead of it let us therefore keep the Feast of the Lords Supper which was the very gloss of Aquinas by me produced Secondly as he slights them so he shakes off me with a lofty scorn I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such learned men As if no body of his Adversaries at least not my poor self did converse with the Fathers and other Learned men but himself who yet takes upon him Magisterially and Dictator like to vent his own Interpretations of Scripture quite against the Judgement of many Ancient and most Modern learned Protestants And whether it advantage me or no sure it will prejudice him not a little to bring a text to prove a Law for Easter which his own conscience tells him is not the sense of it by that means to advance it above the Lords-day when he confesses all that he was to prove there was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them As for me whether I have brought from Scripture some other places which are more Apodictical evidences of Apostolical Institution which imports a Law for the Lords day it is left to the Indifferent Reader to judge As for Aerius his being condemned by Epiphanius for holding Festivals unlawful p. 286. n. 1. as also he did Episcopacy if he meant onely as some think he did that it was unlawful to make Festivals parts of Worwip or Holy-days equal with the Lords-day as he was unjustly branded for an Heretick for this opinion so he hath in this as also in the matter of Episcopacy as the Doctor knowes many Orthodox learned Divines of his opinion who were never called Hereticks for so doing I shall give him the thoughts and desires of some of them First Bucer whom the Doctor delights to cite sometimes in Matth. 12. Ferias alias praetur diem Dominicum optarim abrogatus universas c. I could wish that every Holy-day beside the Lords-day were abolished The zeal which brought them in was without all warrant of the word and meerly followed corrupt reason viz. N. B. to drive out the Holy-days of the Pagans c. Those Holy-days have been so tainted with Superstitions that I wonder that any Christian should not tremble at their very names The next is Oecolampadius in Isa 1.4 I never heard wise man yet who did not judge that a great part at least of other Feasts besides the Lords day should be abolished The last shall be the learned Zanchie who though he speaks favourably sometimes of some Festivals yet thus delivers his judgement It is most agreeable to the first Institution and Apostolical writings that one day onely in the week be kept holy in 4. Precept n. 3. Let the Doctor now go on and call these learned men Hereticks in paraphrase as he plainly does it will be little for his credit I shall in the next place take the Doctor at his word p. 286. n. 4. He professes If I shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe Feasts are superstitious he will think himself obliged to do more then deny the accusation That is I suppose he will acknowledge it and retract his errour Now I accept the condition and shall appeal to the Doctors own conscience whether I have not brought fairer evidences of solid arguments and reasons and that from his own concessions that he is superstitious in observing his Festivals then he
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