Apostles age is the first that writes about it and all he says is from certain Epistles received by Tradition n. 3. he sayes All the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day as from a more ancient Tradition and a custome long before delivered to them which says the Doctor considering the time wherein this question was agitated at the end of the second Century can amount to little less then Apostolical But more then this in the Epistle of Pollycrates to Victor he says Many Biships of Asia observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel keeping exactly the Canon of faith no way wavering from it A good while after comes Nicephorus no very credible Authour and says n. 10. Following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning and that expresly from Saint Peter the Apostle which says the Doctor most confidently still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian Festival was observed and celebrated by the Apostles c. This was spâ—ken for the practice of the Western Church whâ— kept on the Lords day but the Eastern observation might fall on any other day of the week as the Jewish Pasch did But Socrates in his time observed n. 16. That several nations had their several customes of observing Easter That is as his words are As in many other things so also the Feast of Easter by custome in every nation had a peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 private observation because none of the Apostles gave to any a Law about it Now these things hang not well together I shall propound some considerations to cool the Doctors confidence to weaken if not to break this his standard of all other Festivals and to make it more then probable that it is not Apostolicall 1. The best and onely ground he findes to pitch his Standard on is but Tradition unwritten Tradition not the least title of Scripture consequence but that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which by and by The plea is the very same with Papists for their Festivals and other Ceremonies Socrates who relates the debate between the Eastern and Western Churches and their plea on both sides from several Apostles addes But not a man of either side could produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a written demonstration of these things They all plead unwritten uncertain Tradition Whereas a standard for all Festivals should have at least one foot standing upon a written word It is too much though too ordinary for the Doctor to comply with Rome in the countenancing of unwritten Traditions 2. Traditions Apostolical do sometimes imply their written Institutions and instructions Hold the Traditions * Traditiones vocat doctrinae institutu Religionis Christianae c. Estius in locum which ye have been taught by word or our Epistle 2 Thes 2.15 which no doubt were both the same But the Doctor though in the Authorities pleaded he is content they shall use the words Apostolical Tradition often yet himself waves it and never calls his Festivals an Apostolicall Tradition but an Apostolical observation * The words of Nicephorus in the margine p. 242. n. 5. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolical Authority which is more then custome practice c. not Englished by the Doctor custome practice n. 10.17 18 19. The reason is because an Apostolical Tradition to the Churches to keep might well infer an Institution and so Divine Authority which he knew he could never prove and therefore pleads Onely the Practice Apostolical and not their commanding it by Law n. 17. But say I Apostolical Practice onely makes it more uncertain and more unable to bear his Standard because they practised many things not as Christians or to be conveyed to Christian Churches but meerly too comply with the Jewes their countrey-men to win them the better as was said above 3. p. 242. n. 5 6. Yet what is that less then an Apostolical Divine Institution which Polycrates and his fellows plead for their custome All which saith he observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel not at all transgressing but following the Canon of Faith But then it might be feared and inferred that Peter and Paul transgressed both against the Gospel and Canon of Faith in their contrary custome Let him see to that Is it not very probable that Paul who was often and long in Asia would have withstood Philip and John to their faces as he did Peter the prime Apostle in a like case Gal. 2. for judaizing and complying with the Jews in the Festival who had set up another Day in the Western Church or rather had cryed down the observation of such dayes in other Churches Rom. 14. Gal. 4. 4. If it were I say not of Apostolical Divine institution of Apostolical observation and practice as a Christian Festival would they have differed so in their Tradition of it to the Churches being guided all by the same Spirit would Philip and John observe and leave to the Eastern Churches the Jewish day and Peter and Paul the Lords day all of them jointly having appointed in all Churches a weekly day for the commemoration of the Resurrection which is also made the foundation of Easter day It 's nothing probable 5. If the Eastern observation of Easter was according to the Gospel and Canon of Faith how came it to pass that that custome was abolished as it was and the Western was established was not this to set the Churches together by the eares both of them pleading Apostolical Tradition 6. The Romish plea for their custome from Peter and Paul may reasonably be judged to be forged as their primacy of the Pope is For 1. it's most probable that Peter was never at Rome but uncertain and false Tradition so would have it as our best Divines do make it appear 2. It s most improbable that Paul who was so vehement against all observation of Feasts except the Lords day should institute or practice the same Festival and that at Rome and so build again what he had destroyed Rom. 14.6 Gal. 4. 7. It s no way credible that the Apostles all or any of them would first cry down the Festivals as Jewish and presently set it up as Christian or 2. set up an annual day for the commemoration of the Resurrection the Lords day being before set up for the same end 3. Or lay such a ground of difference to the succeeding Churches by different timeing of it Credat Judaeus apella Non ego 8. How came that contest between Victor and the Afiaticks about the day when the same difference was between him and the French and Brittain Churches No less then a threefold different observation of Easter in the Western Churches as was noted 9. Why does not the Dr. endeavour to recover the day which Philip our Apostle and first planter by some sent hither by him endowed us with and that according to the Gospel and
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
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
whole Church in a manner runs madding into these very great abuses But said I this is pretty untempered morter and the sowing pillows under profane mens elbows For 1. For the eating part I meant the Riotous part he knows the Apostle did abolish the Love Feasts themselves not stay to reform the great and general abuses of them 2. For the sporting part such as was much unbeseeming the Festivity of such a Saviour the Doctor will not yeild that that shall be abolished save in case onely of great and general abuses Nay 3. not for great and general abuses Till they be so great as to out-ballance the good uses and so general that the whole Church runs madding into them 4. Those abuses I said have been long so great that they have out-ballanced the good uses and so general that the whole nation hath run mad into them and yet the eating and sporting part the riot revellings was never attempted to be reformed for those too common unreformable abuses the like whereof were found in and caused the abolition of those Love-feasts as he said p. 270. n. 18. Yet see again his good will and and respect to the Lords-day thus he says I as heartily wish a devout p. 272. n. 24 conscientious profitable observation of the Lords-day as of any other Festivity c. How greatly is God and his Day beholden to his liberality He says not I could wish the Festival days were as devoutly c. observed as the Lords-day that had prefer'd it a little as the standard of observation of Holy-days But his way depresses it below his Festivals and makes them as he did Easter above p. 243. the standard of devotion to the Lords-day And it 's very like his practice in observation of the Days was answerable for he told us of Christmas day That it was observed with much more at least as strictly as any Lords-day in the year Equal strictness was too much but more is more unequal and unjust This he would evade by interpreting the words by those which follow In frequenting the services of the Church in use of the Liturgy Sermon Sacraments c. without prejudice to the Lords-day on which the Lords Supper was not constantly celebrated But this confesses the fact that besides all that pompous shew in Cathedrals of Vestments and Musick c. the * The Sacrament of the Lords Supper I make an ingredient in the strictness of the Celebration of of the Festivity numb 27. pag. 172. Lords Supper which he knows was anciently celebrated every Lords-day and somewhere oftner should be enjoyned strictly to be celebrated on Christmas day and was by some so observed and not on the Lords-day This imported some greater Holiness and Honour to that day above the Lords-day and we then might have wished as heartily as the Doctor does now that the Lords day might have been kept as devoutly c. as the Festival day and fit it was it should have had some preheminence as being of Divine Institution which his Festival had not The Apostolical Institution of the Lords-day was I thought granted by the Doctor Fest Sect. 31. and Apostolical Institutions to be Divine was also asserted Quer. 1. s 22. p. 273. n. 30. Yet how willingly would he and how subtlely does he retract what he had granted to make either the Lords-day equally Ecclesiastical with his Festival or his Festival equally Apostolical with the Lords-day For I having charged him to assert Sect. 57. The Lords-day to be by the same authority appointed viz. of the Church See how he shuffles to avoid it first I did grant it though I know not in what words of Scripture that Institution of the Lords day is set down Was he not then too rash to acknowledge what he could not by Scripture some way make out He pleads Infant Baptism to be the institution of Christ of Apostolical Practice though he cannot tell where to find either of them in Scripture He might have gratified the Lords-day with the same allowance especially having the mention of the Lords-day there and observation of it by the Apostles which presupposes an Institution which the other wants 2. He takes off the objection from s 57. thus p. 273. n. 30. Those words there used Though the Lords-day be by the same authority appointed do not belong to the stating of the question and no affirmation that the Lords-day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas-day c. Let the Reader turn to the place and judge He had said The same Church or any other authority equal to that obliges c. Then follows And though the Lords day be by the same Authority appointed that must needs be the Church which obliges c. 3. But he goes on and says He is confessed in my Margent to have said the Apostles instituted the Lords day and he speaks as plainly Sect. 57. of Christmas day that it hath it's Institution and usage from the universal Church But I ask if he equivocate not with us does not this put a plain difference between the Institution of the Lords-day and Christmas-day the one Apostolical the other Ecclesiastical or else he must make them both of the same Authority and was not that his designe without any calumny Here yet more 4. Either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be taken so as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles Instituted the Lords-day and either they personally or their successours used and delivered down the other Festivals of Easter c. But this is a miserable prevarication For 1. What means he by the Church of the * See p. 39. n. 4. Universal Church including the Apostles chief pastors thereof or the succeeding Churches with their Governors Apostles which instituted the Lords-day either the Apostles themselves as it 's usual with some to call the Rulers the Bishops onely the Church and then it is of Divine Institution and so differs sufficiently from Institutions of the succeeding Church or Rulers Or the Church without or with the Apostles but he cannot shew any such power in the Church to institute Ceremonies as parts of Worship without them or with them neither then could it be called an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical rather if the Apostles were not considered as Apostles but as Governors of the Church and so not of Divine Institution 2. Yet how doubtfully he speakes of his Christmas Either they personally or their Successours used and delivered down the other Festivals If not they personally but their successours then behold a different authority again they personally instituted the Lords-day but not his Christmas then they are not both by the same authority appointed 3 Yet more warily They or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals He should have
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
particular Church as we should place only in those of Divine institution by Christ and his Apostles And so commonly men do account the Church as Holy as the Temple was and Festivals as Holy as the Lords day and are not by the Doctor taught their due proportions Many things were there propounded to his consideration Sect. 39. which we cannot but take ill to be slighted as not concerning him to take notice of first whether any but God can make a thing properly Holy 2. What proper Holiness is 3. The diffâ—…ence of Holiness given by the different Auâ—… c. and the rest there propounded The Doctor waving all these for what reason he best knowes catches at an advantage from some words of mine I said In times or places separated by God or men there is this difference besides others that those sanctified by God require holy duties to fill them up but those by men are to wait upon holy duties This he sayes without consideration is not so Prayer and Fasting c. were not appointed for time or places sake c. He clearly mistakes me for I meant thus The Sabbath and the Temple being made Holy by God required Holy Services to fill them up But times and places set apart by men have respect to the Worship of God and are appointed for the Worships sake not the Worship for the time and places sake That 's it that I said a little afore men cannot make any thing properly Holy but onely improperly with respect to Holy things or Duties And that is to make any time or place when and where those duties are performed as Holy as any other time or place that is the one no more Holy then another But this Holiness I doubt will not serve the Doctors turn yet it must if he be constant to his principles For he professes not to make his time and place Festivals and Churches parts of Worship but circumstances onely of Worship which any Day or place is as well as his separated Dayes and places and so one as Holy as another p. 87. n. 13. But to this he hath to say The time and place instituted by God himself is as truly a circumstance of Worship as when instituted by men and duty is equally the Substance c This is another of his mistakes not that time and place instituted by God are not as truly Circumstances as those by men but that they are more even parts of Worship so was the Sabbath and Temple but so are not his Holy-dayes and our Churches Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things And now he may take home his * The Doctor uses the word till for fill the Printers fault to give me a flout and that twice Absurdity put upon me to himself I said I had thought Apostolical and Divine had been both one with the Doctor and so they are sometimes but I perceive he makes them differ c. He answers It is soon dispatcht p. 88. n. 14. by saying I do not think the Apostles to be God Too soon dispatcht indeed Did ever any man charge him to think so when he made Apostolical institutions to be Divine and infallible Is not this a miserable subterfuge when he knowes well enough how to distinguish between Immediately Divine so were Christs own Institutions and mediately The Scripture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine inspiration or God inspired yet writ by holy men 2 Pet. 1.21 by commission from him and Inspiration from the Holy Ghost so were the Apostles Divine Why then did he speak thus Sure it was either to bring Apostolical down to Ecclesiastical or to advance the latter to the Authority of the former and to make them equal But is it not uncharitable for me thus to judge No not at all knowing him so well as I do For he sayes expresly hereafter His Festival and the Lords day are founded both on the same Authority Fest 5.57 Then either Ecclesiastical is Divine for so is Apostolical or Apostolical is but Humane for so is Ecclesiastical unless the Doctor will joyn with Papists and make the Churches Sanctions to be Divine as was said afore But more of this hereafter Yet before we part with this Section one thing the Doctor is desired in his next to satisfie how he will avoid that in the close By this distinction aforegoing of his the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition in placing Holiness in things times places they may borrow the Doctors answer They may say they account them Holy but either by the authority of the general or particular Church of Rome and that is no Superstition sayes he say they Something would be said to this Sect. 40 41 42. But he goes on If my voluntary oblation I perform as a voluntary oblation c. THese three Sections the Doctor passes over with an easie touch because it touches too near upon his Will-worship and therefore tells me I beg the question p. 28. n. 15. to take it for granted that his voluntary oblation is an eminent species of Superstition against which punishment is denounced in the second Commandment when his whole Tract of Will-worship undertakes to demonstrate the contrary c. I could answer for my self that at my first draught I placed his and my own Tract of Will-worship before that of Superstition as he did and so took it for granted I had proved his Will-worship to be a Species of Superstition But I say the place is proper enough here having in my discourse of Superstition held out Will-worship to be a species of Superstition by the Judgement of of the best Divines though much more remaines to be said of it And I adde further that the Doctor hath yielded Vncommanded Worship to be unlawfull and superstitious but his voluntary oblation Worship he meanes is Uncommanded Worship ergo let him take heed of the punishment threatned to such Worship Yet I shall say I am not much troubled that he reserves this to the next Exercitation if I were sure he would look back to these three Sections and answer them there but this I fear is but an avoidance of what he is not willing to answer We shall observe his performance Sect. 43. And now the Doctor may be pleased to review and if he will recall his bitter false uncharitable conclusion c. HOw the Doctor hath vindicated his Doctrine against me the indifferent Reader p. 89. n. 4. must now be Judge not we our selves It onely remaines to see how he will vindicate his charity in his bitter conclusion which he goes about first by his Rhetorick craving to premise that it was but a severe Satyre against a vice and not a person c. I shall with him desire the Iudifferent Reader to review those two last Sections and then give Judgment whether he doth not even point at the persons whom he meanes not in particular naming the men but in a plain
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
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
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