Ecclesiasticas praesertim quae fidei non officiunt ita observandas ut à majoribus traditae sunt nec aliorum consuetudinem aliorum contrario more subverti I would briefely admonish you that Ecclesiastical traditions especially such as offend not the faith are so to be observed as they are delivered by our Ancestors nor must the custome of some be subverted by the contrary custome of others And yet higher in the same Epistle Vnaquaeque provincia praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province esteem the precepts of their Ancestors as Apostolical Laws i. e. certainly pay observance to them though they be not of Apostolical institution So Isidore l. 2. de Eccl Offic c. 43. Nec disciplina in his melior est gravi prudentique Christiano nisi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Ecclesiam ad quam devenerit There is no better rule in such things for a grave and prudent Christian then to do in that manner as he sees the Church do to which he comes Store of suffrages might be heaped up on this occasion these few may suffice to justifie all that I had said in that first § Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity THE 2d § had proposed one argument for the antiquity of this usage among us founded in the adversaries suggestion against it The adversaries generally accuse the Christmass Festivity for some heathenish mixtures reteined in it From which if it were true or however from the concession of those that affirmed it I conceived an argument might be drawn that therefore it was to be taken as granted that this usage was continued among us from the time of our first conversion from heathenism And I cannot yet see how this inference can be avoided For how can any heathen usage adhere to this Festivity if all heathen customes were laid aside long before this Festival were observed Can it be imagined that after the ejecting of heathenism and the solemn abolition of all their feasts Saturnalia and the like when Christianity had gotten the possession there should still continue among them those adherent rites of their heathen feasts so many accidents without their subjects Or that Christians that had long since renounced heathenism and at length received this Christian feast should ransack their heathen rituals for ceremonies wherewith to adorn it But this it seems is of no force or as he saith no way constringent with this Diatribist For saith he they might be added some good while after the first conversion of some part of this Island the better to win the rest to a liking of Christian religion by conforming to them in the celebration of festivals As the like was done to win the Jews in observing the old sabbath Pentecost c. But sure there is little force in this evasion For 1. it is by this answer confest that as to some parts of this Island my argument is of force and that in those this festival was introduced as early as their Christianity and if that may be granted me I shall contend for no more by this medium but think I have gained a very fair confession for the antiquity of this usage in this Church that this festivity was thus early introduced among us even as soon if not before Christianity had gotten possession of this whole Nation Meanwhile that the Nation was not converted the several parts of it together I mean not every person of every part but some of all or that there was any such interstitium or interval considerable betwixt the conversion of some part of this Island and the rest of it this is incumbent on the Diatribist to prove or else the argument remains in full force to the whole Nation as well as to any part of it And for this he hath offered no proof and so hath yielded the force of my argument when he went about to refute it 2dly The example of the Christians complying with the Jews will stand him in as little stead for when was it that the Christians thus complied with the Jews or that they retain'd their old sabbath out of that design of compliance with them Was it not at the time of the first conversion of the Jews to Christianity Can it be imagined that the Jews were a good while before converted to the faith and to the doctrine of the abolition of the sabbath and then some good while after that their conversion the observation of their sabbath should be reduced expostliminio Would not this be a constringent argument to any gainsayer to prove that baptism was introduced at the first beginnings of Christianity because baptisme is known to be a custome taken from the Jews And so sure of the sabbath and the like If any space or interval had come in after the planting of Christianity among the Jews it is no way probable that the sabbath once laid aside as a ceremony naild to the cross of Christ would ever after have been recalled and observed among Christians only at the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian though they were not taught by Christianity and so some others from the heathen also t is possible and imaginable but t is no way supposeable after the space of many years when heathenisme with all its rites and adherents had long ago been cast out And let this serve for his 2d § The matter is not so weighty being but an argumentum ad homines as to deserve any greater length of discourse to vindicate it Sect. 3. Of Crescens coming into France and Simon Zelotes into England The difference of keeping Easter in the West and East Testimonies for our conversion in the Apostles times Before King Lucius The Diatribists suggestion disproved Britain not converted from Rome COncerning the first planting of Christianity in this Nation by some Apostle or Apostolical person what was said with competent probability out of our histories is considered by the Diatribist in the next place but nothing said or offered to be proved by him which may exact answer from me the whole matter especially being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business of Festivals only some passages of his must be shortly noted As 1. when from my saying that Crescens his being in France removes all improbability from those histories that record the plantation of Christianity in these Islands in the Apostles times he seems to believe it my opinion that Crescens came over hither for so saith he the Doctor would have it and proves it out of Scripture which very thing he knowes I absolutely disclaim and only conclude it as credible that some other Apostle or Apostolical person should so early come over hither and plant the Faith as that Crescens should come into France in S. Pauls dayes which yet the French generally believe that he did and have received it by tradition and the words of Scripture may very
that under the New Testament Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians This no action of common life nor yet a due debt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for using 1 Cor. 7. 31. 1 Cor 9. 17. explained The authority of Augustine Chrysostome and Theophylact. 184 Sect 4. The third of Paul's going up to Jerusalem this under no precept No refusing to suffer no retarding of the Gospel The example of Christ and S. Paul at other times the testimony of Origen and confession of the Diatribist 188 Sect. 5. The fourth of more liberal almes giving Sadduces and Asidaei Righteousness Mercy Paul's advice without command 2 Cor. 8. 2. The Diatribists answer satisfied Almes the Christians sacrifice in the offertory Allowance no command A latitude of degrees in the middle rule The Apostles direction of giving as God hath prospered Of the circumstances of giving 191 Sect. 6. The fifth instance vindicated Circumstances of Prayer acknowledged free Difference between placing worship in gestures c. and pleasing God by them So in Festivals 197 Sect. 7. Of the difference betwixt a precept and a grace The proportionable return to grace is in a latitude The highest no excesse A possibility for grace to be given in vain 198 Sect. 8. My answer to a first bead of objections vindicated Prudence lost by mans own sin recoverable by grace The punishments of Adams sin are not our faults Perfection of innocence capable of degrees So perfection of the Judaical law and of the Christian So mercifulness to ability 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8. 3. Merciful as God is Merciful belongs not to the degree Gods righteousness punishes not where there is no law Intuition of reward in Christian performances no Popery Proofs of this from Scripture from the nature of Hope Faith Gratitude Not always prudent to undertake the highest Martyrdome no conceited Popish perfection yet under no precept to all S. Hieroms words examined Two notions of the word Perfection Some perfection possible in this life and yet capable of growth The law as it signifies the condition of the first Covenant is not now in force with believers Of Christs perfecting the law Every man is not bound to do what is best 1 Cor. 7. 3. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of moral good The saying of Gregory explicated 202 Sect. 9. My answer to a second sort of objection vindicated Loving God with all the heart Adam's love in innocency capable of degrees Perfect love that casts out fear to be had in this life Christ more intense in prayer at one time then another an argument that all is not sinne that is less then the highest 221 Sect. 10. My answer to the last objection of Supererogation A place in S. Cyprian vindicated from the Romanists reading Imputare An act of mercy in God that our works are rewarded Supererogation wherein it consists The Diatribists etymology of the word disproved Erogare Erogatio The Diatribists ways of Supererogating Pride Glorying More reward for eminent uncommanded excellencies superadded to duty The Diatribists charity and confession of us His censure of the Bishops unjust 223. CHAP. VII Of Christmass and other Festivals p. 231 Sect. 1. The observance which is due to the Custome of a Church The Testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine and Isidore 231 Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity 233 Sect. 3. Of Crescens coming into France and Simon Zelotes into England The difference of keeping Easter in the West and East Testimonies for our conversion in the Apostles times Before King Lucius The Diatribists suggestion disproved Britain not converted from Rome 235 Sect. 4. The keeping of Easter in the Apostles times Polycrates's Epistle to Victor The Asiatick way from Philip and John From Philip derived to Britanny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testmony of Socrates against Festivals examined 241 Sect. 5. Midwinter-day The Winter Solstice Julius's Calendar 246 Sect. 6. Festivals not Romish The primitive Churches pure from the heresies that sollicited them The Romish corruptions not fetcht from them 247 Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feast may not be abolisht among us The Diatribists mistake of the question 249 Sect. 8. The Reformation in this Kingdome No imperfection in it in point of Festivals The States joyning in it no disadvantage to the Church 252 Sect. 9. The Lutheran Churches accord in this Morneys wish The Helvetian confession Rivets custome of preaching on the day 254 Sect. 10. Ejecting festivals Separation from the purest times even those of the Apostles Our Churches departure from Rome unjustly paralleld with the departure of sons from our Church 255 Sect. 11. The profaneness objected to the Festival Casting out the Creeds 257 Sect. 12. The Diatribists change of my words his causlesse praise of himself and censure of others 259 Sect. 13. His 2d change of my words Gedeons golden Ephod not appliable to Feasts 260 Sect. 14. Strictures on his 16th § Our Festivals unfitly compared with the Romish How observation of Fèstivals may be a duty of the 5 Commandment The fourth Commandment no way contrary to Christian Festivals Veniall sinnes All mistakes not sinnes Chemnitius not producible against me 261 Sect. 15. Of riot Christian joyes no way contrary to our Festivals Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day Heathen customes cannot be objected Gods judgements vainly urged for arguments The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after Reformation of excess without abolition of the Festival Attempt to reform previous to abolition The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals Cures for diseases excisions only for desperate spreading evils No cards on Christmas day as much strictness on Christmas not more sacredness then on the Lords day No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles Neither Superstition nor hypocrisie in abstaining from cards on Christmas day 265 Sect. 16. Christmas if of the same original with Easter certainly Apostolical However of the practice of the Primitive Church All rendring of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 275 Sect. 17. The encaenia a religious feast instituted by the Jews and approved by Christ vindicated from all his exceptions Marriage feasts Religious feasts cannot be unlawfull if civill be lawfull The feast of Purim a religious feast 277 Sect. 18. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day 283 Sect. 19. Aerius's heresie that Festivals are unlawfull S. Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius's The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of the Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals 286 Sect. 20. Strictures on § 35. The author of the Constitutions a competent testifier when in accord with others Justinus's edict for Festivals reconcileable with the Apostolical usage of
worship which saith he is too much and such a man may be too religious And this being the onely product of his distinction is as I intimated so far from clearing that it is the perplexing and intrieating the business which was formerly clear enough the leading the Reader not out but into Meanders an intanglement of the clue a Sphinx instead of an Oedipus For there was no such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before nothing so difficult so involved of so incertain and dubious signification as this which now he calls giving God more then he requires by the rule of worship and explains by uncommanded worship and the least addition to the rule of worship I shall evince the truth of what I now say and with the same hand clear again what he hath clouded by asking him but this one question Doth he mean in these words more and Addition any new species or sort of worship neither prescribed by the law of Nature nor instituted by any positive law of God or doth he designe onely some circumstance onely or ceremony which being not of the intrinsick nature or essence of worship but onely accidental to it is not particularly commanded or prescribed by the word of God the rule of worship such are the time the place the gestures and such outward but some of them inseparable attendants of worship I shall desire to secure my expressions from obscurity and mistakes and therefore to be as explicit as may be Prayer is a species of worship praying on the Lords day on Christmas day observing constant hours of prayer thrice seven ten times every day is each of them a circumstance adherent to Prayer some time is necessary and inseparable from Prayer but every of these times forementioned are not so he that prayes but thrice doth not pray seven or ten times a day So again the place of prayer may give it a different denomination either of publick or private the manner may render it more or less solemn the gestures more or less reverent or irreverent the increase letting down of ardor devout or formal and there are many sorts and degrees of each of these but these do not constitute new or several sorts of worship but all are accidents of one and the same special of worship viz. of Prayer Here then is a wide difference and if his meaning were of the species or sorts of worship then I never doubted to affirm with him that all uncommanded worship is an excess if he please an error I should rather say a setting up that for worship of God which is not worship nay perhaps quite contrary to worship and this sure was never justified by me explicitely or implicitely in conclusions or in grounds and principles of thus concluding and so still this hath not been usefull to me to discover any mistake of mine The second then is the onely branch remaining of which his words as referring to me can possibly be understood and then 't wil prove so far from being any misadventure of mine that it will devolve all absurdity upon the Diatribist For I shall demand Hath the rule of worship i. e. the Scripture any where prescribed the times the places the gestures and all the circumstances of the worship of God and that both positively and exclusively so that he that prayes oftener then the Scripture expresly commands or on any day not assigned to that purpose by Scripture sinnes in so doing addes to the rule gives more then God requires doth too much is too religious is criminous and abominable to God in so doing every of these must be the affirmations of this Diatribist if this 2d meaning be his and the like he is obliged to say again of him that prays in any place in any manner in any gesture which the word of Scripture the rule of worship hath not commanded And because this is by all reason to be resolved to be his meaning or else his whole Book is perfectly cast away a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or beating the air without me or any man else to be his adversarie I shall at the present suppose it so and shew him as deictically as he can wish the absurdities of it And 1. for the times of prayer I demand What hath the rule of worship the Scripture prescribed hath it prescribed morning and evening Prayer and that both positively and exclusively to any more If so then by the standard of this Diatribist's doctrine Davids or Daniels praying three times a day adding the noon day season to the other two must be criminous and abominable or if he shall pitch upon any other number of times as prescribed by the Rule then I shall add an unite more to that number and demand whether that addition will adde abomination to his performances If he saith it will though I might press that affirmation with absurdities enough yet I shall spare it and onely demand the proof from the Scripture for this assertion and when he gives it me forfeit all my pretensions to the understanding that sacred book but if he cannot produce any such Scripture then is my Censor the guilty person the very dogmatizer that teacheth for Doctrines or Commandments of God his own Dictates which I must suppose to be the traditions of a man and the doing so I cannot resist to be a nimiety but not of religion that I yet discern In like manner for set days to be consecrated to the worship of God for fasting or for prayer I demand how many every week or every yeer hath the Rule of worship prescribed Or what rule of worship shall be appealed to the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Christ His answer to this question will involve him in intricacies enough If the Law of Moses be the rule then he knows all the New Moons and feasts of the Jews and Sabbatick years and Jubilees must return upon him If the Gospel of Christ which hath certainly abolisht all these and as he supposeth set up the Lords-day instead of them all then 1. I demand in what words of the New Testament the weekly observation of this is commanded and 2. in what words the observing all others but that particularly the Feast of Easter the annual commemorative of the Resurrection is interdicted and whether the weekly remembrance of so great a mercy being so acceptable to God it be reasonable to think the annual abominable before him And the same question soon extends it self to the day of Christs Incarnation Passion Ascension c. and if of each of these he shall define and pronounce them unlawfull without testimony and verdict from the Rule of worship the Scripture then he is the Dogmatizer that hath added to the Rule more interdicts then are there to be met with and so still he is the man guilty of the nimiety So again for gestures in the worship of God I demand What is the gesture of prayer prescribed by the Rule Is it standing sitting or
the original of the word is another thing not super statutum what then can he tolerably mean by t is well applied by Divines can Divines do well to apply superstitio to super statutum when that is no way the nature of the word Or can any proof be brought from hence to conclude superstition an excess or addition to the rule because it is super statutum when there is no affinity between super statutum and superstition what is or can be unreasonable if this be not And so it appears how little truth there is in that which shuts up this first reason That which the Old Testament calls addition to the word the New calls doctrines traditions of men wil-worship superstition In which few words as there be many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the N. T. called Doctrines I suppose he means teaching somewhat else for doctrines Mat. 15 9. assuming them to be such when they are not So again Mar. 7. 7. where yet the word Doctrines signifies the Scripture or Doctrine of God and so the teaching their own traditions for doctrines is adding them to the Scripture Doctrines there simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition is made and 2. that they are called wil-worship the contrary of which is proved in the Treatise of wil-worship and here to suppose it is a begging of the question so sure this is a third that additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New T. called superstition I desire he will shew me one such place for my Concordance will not afford it me T is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only twice there used First Act. 17. 22. by St. Paul of the Athenians whom he perceived to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more superstitious then others But these sure 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 styled adders to the rule of Worship adulterers are so in like manner and so by that measure or standard every sin in the world is superstition Secondly the word is used Act. 25. 29. where Festus speaks of Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own superstition but sure meant not to accuse him of adding to his or the Jews rule of worship but understood his own Religion and nothing else by that phrase And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are as many misadventures amasst together as could well be crowded into so few words His second proof now follows thus Because as the defect in Religion is called profaneness so the excess is called superstition as standing in opposition to it Alas it seems there is great need of proofs for this again as the former was the very medium to prove the first proposition and so either the first and this second proposition of his are all one and then why was it cut in two by Lucians beetle or else these proofs are very excellent instruments fitted for all turns indifferently However it is I shall not need provide new answers to it but remand it to the former Section where it was considered to the utmost it could pretend Only if he please I shall put it in form for him thus The worship of the many false Gods or Demons is an excess opposed to Religion or worship of the one true God of heaven and earth in Aquinas's opinion and so also is the worshipping the true God after an undue or unlawfull manner ergo the using any Ceremony in the worship of the true God which the Scripture hath not commanded is superstition and superstition is that As if he should say superstition is that because it is somewhat else as extremely distant from that as that which is not God is from God or as unlawfull for so is superstition is from lawfull for such is that which is not prohibited 13. A third proof he now adds of his affirmation and that after the manner observed in his former argument from the Doctors own concessions and no less then five nay the fourth number being twice repeated no less then six of them And if I have so liberally granted it I wonder how it came to be my charge and that as the cause of my miscarriages that I denyed it But 't is strange to see what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can do phansie first and next accuse me of denying a thing grosso modo and to prove me to have erred in thus denying produce six several senses wherein I have granted it whereas there is in the whole inditement but one pretended wherein I had denyed it In all reason those six concessions might have reconciled the Diatribist to me and perswaded him that I was of his minde rather then one single appearance of dissenting have thus provoked him The Doctors Concessions such as they are are evidently reconcileable with all that he hath proposed in that Tract of Superstition and the descending to a particular view of them as they are marshalled up by the Diatribist will take away all doubt in this matter First saith he he grants that superstitions may denote such an excess Sect. 31. Here I demand what Mr. C. means by such an excess that indeed is thus far answered already that he means an excess of Religion But what excess in Religion The super statutum every addition to the rule of worship i. e. every uncommanded circumstance or Ceremony in the worship of God Thus he must mean if he be constant to himself and if the Doctors Concessions yield him any appearance of proof for his affirmative But to see the luck of it this first citation from the Doctor is so far from yielding him any such testimony that it is indeed the quite contrary for that which the Doctor there observes Sect. 31. is this that the word superstitiosus may indeed denote such excess from the force of the termination osus but this no more then the word religiosus also denotes in the opinion of Agellius out of Nigidius Figulus and consequently that 1. Superstitio and Religio were all one in that same Author's opinion and 2. that it is the animadversion of Agellius upon that Author that all such excesses are not culpable or taken in ill but good senses And then was not this a dangerous concession fit to be called out in judgement against me then which nothing could be more direct to the asserting mine and refuting the Diatribists hypothesis If this account of the word superstitiosus were not sufficient to secure my pretensions which in that place were only this that superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess I might farther adde that even when the word superstitiosus is but a bare denominative from superstitio and yet is used in an ill sense as when we Christians say a superstitious person the account is clear
evident 1. by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines signifie those things which are taught as from God Mat. 15. 9. hath been formerly shewed and is evidens from the form of speech in vain do they worship me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men where the commands of men are taught not as such but as doctrines of God From hence the active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dogmatize ordinarily denotes teaching those things to be divine precepts and so obliging conscience which are not and accordingly the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs denote the having such weights thus imposed upon them being subject to ordinances or doctrines as we rightly render it These are in the beginning of that 20. v. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the elements of the world whether of the Jewish or Gentile service both nailed to his crosse by Christ cancelled in his death but such as were incumbent on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that lived in the world being under those elements or initial ordinances though Christians were not 3. These are specified what they were Touch not taste not handle not abstinences from meats and from marriage that of meats evidently a precept of Gods to the Jewes and the Gnosticks divinity being in part compounded of Judaism there is no reason to doubt but they taught these abstinencies as the Jewes taught them i. e. as divine obliging precepts and joined abstinence from marriage to that of meats in the same form i. e. as under precept also As for that which the Diatribist addes to confirm his objection viz that in the next verse they are called the commandments and doctrines of men it hath no force in it for so really they were and not of God but yet were by the false teachers imposed under a more honourable glosse as commands not of men but of God and therein their false teaching consisted And it is strange the Diatribist could say of such false doctrines that they could not be pretended much lesse imposed as a divine command T is as if he should say False teachers could not teach false hypocrites and deceivers could not pretend the authority of Scripture for their errors the Devil could not put on the appearance of an Angel of light So again 't is with equal truth that he saith the traditions were not pleaded to be the commandments of God but expressely called the commandments of men Mat. 15. 9. when 't is evident that those commandments of men were by the Pharisees taught as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines and so commandments of God though by Christ affirmed in truth to be opposite to Gods real commands v. 3. 6. it being very ordinary with hereticks and hypocrites to pretend that to be the will and command of God which is most extremely contrary to it And in that the Pharisees sin and hypocrisie consisted Fourthly he would ask me another question whether the placing the worship of God in the observation of those ordinances though not taught or imposed as God's commands were not an abuse of them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I answer 1. By asking what he means by the worship of God if such as man may justly prescribe or practise either ceremonies perfectly lawfull but not prescribed by God or more then so that which is sure to be accepted by him though yet it be not under divine precept then 't is certain 't were no abuse but if he mean the commanded worship of God then his question implyes a contradiction for whatsoever this worship of God is placed in that is taught as command of God for else it were not Gods prescribed worship which yet it is supposed to be 2. That these abstinencies being of such a nature that Christ removed all ordinances requiring them and purposely designed that they should be left free to men no humane authority could lawfully impose them no man can forbid marriage to Christians and so any such command were an abuse of authority if given by lawful superiors or if given by others an act of intrusion and usurpation for who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren But then this may not be extended to all ceremonies and circumstances of the worship of God times gestures c. for Christ never exprest any absolute dislike to all such nor can the imposing of such with prudence in respect of choise and moderation in respect of number be by any analogic reducible to those abstinencies of which the Apostle there speaks Nay even for those particularly abstinence from marriage t is certain that it may be lawfully practised by him that can bear it and that all the error is in imposing it on others contrary to that liberty which Christ hath for weighty reasons allowed and required to continue allowable and honorable among Christians Lastly He argues from the following words v. 23. where the Apostle sayes they have a shew of wisdome in Will-worship not as the commands of God and thence he concludes their abuse to be not that they imposed them as divine commands but as parts of divine worship But I answer that that verse is not the setting down the abuse or the defining wherein it consists but at the utmost a description of the faire glosses those abstinencies and false worships were capable of viz. a double shew or appearance of piety one in Will-worship offering to God a free will offering for such is every uncommanded if lawfull abstinence but such was not this and therefore 't was but a shew of piety and another in humility worshipping Angels as the ministers of God humility indeed a most Christian virtue but this no justifiable humility To which also a third is subjoyned that of self-denyal or austerity of the same kind with the former and so still 't was but a shew no reality of wisdome or piety which consisted in this Sect. 6. The Diatribist's way to make the Doctors words witness against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Placing worship an equivocal phrase BUt the Diatribist is so fixtly resolved on his way that the criminousness and danger of these abstinencies shall consist in their being devised or willed by men and not in the Gnostick dogmatizing or teaching them to be commanded by God that in his 6 t § the Doctor himself shall again according to his method taken up in his preface be brought in to testifie for him To which purpose these words are cited from him that the danger consists in imposing on men humane ordinances or doctrines and then saith he stay there a while viz. that he may from those words taken alone conclude that then they did not impose them as commands of God But I know not what obligation lyes either on the Reader or me to make a pause upon his command in the very middle of a period when the words which
imaginable Sect. 8. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day NOw followes his view of what I had said of the Lords day not instituted by Christ or God himself but by the Apostles without any mention in the New Testament of any prescription or law for the observing of it To this he is very glad to proceed hoping for some great advantage from it let us see what the success will prove And 1. saith he there want not learned men who think that Christ did designe the day But I must demand whether he can imagine that those learned men were in the right in this or have herein exprest any of their learning If he cannot think they have why doth he lose time and gain nothing by the mention of them If he can why doth he not so much as offer their grounds of thus opining when he knowes nor Scripture nor antiquity saith any thing of it and when it were as tolerable in any opposer to offer his opinion also that Christmass day was by Christ himself designed also But then 2dly saith he if the Apostles did institute it that 's more then he dare say of Christmass day And what if it be Doth that prejudge the observing of Christmass supposing it certain as I do suppose that it was either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church Suppose some feasts of the Iewes instituted by God or Moses others by the Church of the Iewes and not by Moses as the Purim and Encaenia Are not these latter as lawfully to be kept to all posterity of the Iews as those former But then 2dly the parallel that I set betwixt the Lords day and Christmass day was only 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 immediatly from the Apostles It being evident that 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 lawful yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former as the Encaenia were as lawful as the Passover and were obligatory also though not by the same authority By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the observing of Christmass though there should be no certainty of the Apostles instituting it Next he demands If the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ do not their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law I answer that if by institution be meant giving Law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition the predication being identical institution in this sense is prescribing or giving Law But 't is possible that institution of the Lords day by the Apostles may signifie another thing viz. that the Apostles practice assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an institution or a Law with the succeeding Church though indeed the Apostles gave no Law for it or if they did no such Law appears from them The examples of the Apostles are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law And accordingly in this sense also I consent to the Diatribist that their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law and so I shall no way contend with him in this matter Onely upon these grounds I shall demand 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 And then to omit Episcopacy which he cannot but know hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords day I shall insist onely on the feast of Easter which hath been demonstrated to be derived from the Apostles and so is an instance of all that I pretend in the point of Festivals leaving Christmass day to the equity of proportion and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it Next he proceeds to what I farther say of the no Law that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day In order to which I said that if any thing of that nature be sought there it will rather appear to belong to the annual then weekly feast of the resurrection naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. by some thought to belong to the annual day also Against these he urgeth some authorities of some ancient and modern writers which saith he do not seem to understand these places thus And though t were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies yet I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such Learned men but yielding him all he desires of both these places I must only desire him to remember that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me unlesse he can bring out of the Scripture some other places which are more apodicticall evidences of Apostolicall Law for the weekly Lords day then these are for the annual For the matter is clear all that I was there to prove was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them Sect. 19. Aërius 's herisie that Festivals are unlawfull St Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius ' s. The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of tho Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals IN the 32th § to Epiphanius's censure of Aërius as of an heretick for affirming festivals unlawfull his answer is that all is not heresie that Epiphanius calls so nor all Aërius's opinions justly censured as heretical And so indeed the Diatribist is concerned to think both in respect of this and some other interests that especially of Episcopacy But for the averting of so great a crime it would well become the accused to offer some reason for the clearing himself and not onely to have mentioned the name of Osiander the Epitomizer of the Centuriators wose words are not affirmed to belong to this particular of Festivals and if they did whose authority is sure so Incompetent to weigh with Epiphanius in setting down the sense of the ancient Church that in all reason some evidences should have been annexed to adde weight to him As it is I must not thing strange that they which transcribe that affirmation from Aërius will not allow it to be heresie
fitly be so interpreted as to affirm it and I do not believe that Estius hath or that this Diatribist can demonstrate the contrary I am sure he hath here produced nothing toward it but the bare name of Estius That Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes was the person that first planted the faith here I receive from our Stories by tradition and accordingly satisfie my self therewith and never attribute it to Crescens or any other but particularly express my reasons why I cannot imagine it to be Crescens and therefore am very much misreported in this matter All that I had to do with Crescens in that place was only this that from the authority of the relations of Crescens's coming so early into France I thought I might conclude against the improbability of Josephs or Simons coming hither the latter being perfectly as credible as the former and the passage from France to England so short and easie that there can be no difficulty or disparity in the matter that one should be believed by the French and the other be incredible to us This was set down intelligibly enough in that treatise if the Diatribists haste or somewhat else had not cast the cloud over it Secondly when from the time of celebrating Easter anciently in this Nation I conclude that neither Peter nor Paul nor Crescens did first bring the Faith into this Island and the Diatribist thinks he hath thereby gained an advantage and that the same reason is of force against Joseph and Simon Zelotes also this is an evident mistake in him For it is sufficiently known that as the Western custome of keeping Easter was deduced from S. Peter and S. Paul so the contrary Eastern observation pretended to tradition from other Apostles particularly from S. John Now as to the former of these it is consequent that none of the associates or attendants of S. Paul or S. Peter were the planters of the Faith here and so not Crescens who was such 2 Tim. 4. 11. because of those it is not imaginable that they should vary from the custome received from those two Apostles as t is apparent the first Christians here did in the celebrating of Easter so it is no way conclusible of all others which related not to those two Apostles and such I suppose Joseph and Simon Zelotes were it being very possible that either of these might comply with the Jewish account and accord with S. John and the Eastern Church in this celebration And accordingly as by this indication it appears that the words of Metaphrastes concerning Simon Peters preaching the faith and constituting Churches c. in Britain in the 12th of Nero cannot be deemed to have truth in them so if it may be supposed that Metaphrastes receiving his intelligence from some more ancient author or tradition mistook Simon Peter for Simon Zelotes I see not what could be objected against the probability of the relation either in respect of the person of that Simon who is by very good Authors deemed to have been the planter of the faith here or in respect of the earlinesse of the plantation in or before the 12th of Nero i. e. within 34 years after Christs ascension To this matter of the antiquity of the faith in this Island and that particularly by this Simon Zelotes I shall now add some few considerations First out of the words of Theodoret in his Therapeut Ser 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where having compared the Apostles of Christ under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our fisher-men and Publicans with the Lawgivers of the Grecians and Romanes he affirms that whereas these latter did not perswade or gain upon their next neighbours to live according to their laws those former wrought upon not only Grecians and Romanes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the nations of the Barbarians among which we know the Britains were vulgarly contained and brought them to embrace the Evangelical law and if this be yet too general he then addes the enumeration of the severals and among them by name specifies the Britains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A clear testimony that the Apostles themselves in person paid this obedience to Christs command of going to all nations none excepted and that with some kinde of successe every where particularly here in Britain 2dly From the express words of Nicephorus Callistus who setting down the several plantations of the Apostles hath these words of Simon Zelotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the coming of the holy Ghost upon him he betook himself to Aegypt and Cyrene and Africk and passing through Mauritania and Lybia in the preaching of the Gospel and adventuring on the Western Ocean and preaching the Gospel to the Brittish Islands and depredicating Christ as was needful both by many signes and wonders and by divinity and doctrine and being tried with many afflictions at last with endless joy embracing the death of the cross he departed to his Master Which last passage of his death that it belonged to these Islands also is affirmed by Dorotheus who addes that he was slain and buried here and thereto accord the Greek Liturgies in their Menelogie though Baronius and others dissent in that particular of his death Thirdly That Gildas Brito or Badonicus who affirms that Christ was preached to Britanny under the name of glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae summo Tiberii Caesaris in the last year of Tiberius Caesar i. e. in the fifth year after Christs resurrection is by Sir Hen Spelman cited as author gravis eximiae fidei a grave author and of great fidelity anciently styled Sapiens The wise and so agreeing with these former testimonies may deserve to be heeded by us and not cast off as by the Diatribist he is magisterially dictating that his affirmation was meer tradition and far from probability but not adding the least proof of it but only that no authors of any credit lay it so high with what truth doth now competently appear and is yet farther confirmed by a former testimony brought by Mr. Fox out of Gildas Albanicus in his book of the victory of Aurelius Ambrosius where he affirmes Britannie received the Gospel in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius To this accordeth also the Vatican MS. out of which Baronius placeth the reception of the Faith in this Island about the year 35. which is two years earlier then the last of Tiberius For other passages to the same purpose especially for the relations of Joseph of Arimathea in Guil Malmesbur I refer the Reader to that worthy Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman de exord p. 4. c. And whatever the Diatribist suggests I see not indeed in any or all of this the least degree of either impossibility or improbability For of those Apostles that immediatly after Christs ascension took their journeys to several corners of the world to publish and propagate the Gospel what difficulty is there in believing that in the space of four