of the word which first I speak of and vindicate our Church whether in the ceremonies or observances from all appearance of guilt of it is the worshipping of Demons or deified men and that sure is worse then heresie in every Christians account and so inconveniently compared so as to be equalled with it And 2 whatever our Church hath admitted is cleared to have nothing of Superstition in it in any other secundary notion or acception of the word or if it had yet as long as it is no more but uncommanded Rites or Festivals which by the Diatribist himself are thus styled those sure in any reason will not be capable of this comparison or accusation of being so bad as heresie and 3. will-worship in the one place where it is used in Scripture hath no manner of ill but good character set upon it being joyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with humility which I hope is not yet condemned to be quite so criminal and abominable to God as pride and heresie is acknowledged to be however in this Preface before my interpretation of Col. 2. 23. hath been endevoured to be confuted this so eminent criminousness thereof was not with more reason then charity supposed by him 2. That he hath affirm'd in a parenthesis of some men that they account these and superstition is evidently one of these their virtues rather then crimes which again if applied to me or I think to any Protestant living is very unkind and unprovoked having no ground in any part of my Discourse 3. That will-Wil-worship hath been by him elswhere demonstrated to be as criminal as Heresie which in what notion soever he hath exprest himself to understand the word is with no truth assumed by him as far as refers to these Diatribae and if it be elswhere attempted 1. He should have referred us thither if but to vindicate his own veracity or else have recited the heads of such demonstrative arguments in this place or in the second Diatribe and yet neither of these are done by him Sect. 2. Of being too Religious of the intension or degree The Messalians Neglect of Charity of particular callings Eccl. 7. 16. Of multitude of Ceremonies Too many Ceremonies no argument of too much but of too little Religion HIS fourth mistake is that he hath recited it as one cause of my miscarriages in this business that I affirm that a man cannot be too religious and that I attest this both of the intension or degree and of the extension or number of Ceremonies taken into the worship of God Whereas that which I affirm is evidently this 1. That in respect of the degree there is no such thing as nimiety or excess in Religion no possibility of being Religious in too high a degree Sect. 33. and this is not denyed by Mr. C. nor can be by any pious man who knows that all his faults are omissions and defects but never excesses of piety or religion 2. The main objections imaginable against this from the practice of the Messalians or the neglect of the duties of charity and the particular calling incident to the intense practice of holy duties were foreseen and prevented there the Messalians fault was not their excessive practice but their laying that obligation on themselves and others the same that Tertullian and the Montanists were guilty of in respect of other austerities and so 't was their dogmatizing in their imposition of heavy burthens wherein their heresie not their superstition consisted And the others crime is his idleness and walking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disorderly a crime censured by the Apostle 2 Thes 3. 11. yet far enough from Superstition again and in like manner his want of charity and so not nimiety but unseasonableness of piety contrary to the express words of Christ I will have mercy and not sacrifice And if yet a third objection be offered from the words of the Preacher Eccl. 7. 16. which yet this Diatribist hath not thought fit to offer Be not righteous overmuch why shouldst thou destroy thy self I suppose the answer is obvious that those words are the intimation of the wordlings objection who taketh that for excess of duty which brings any damage or worldly destruction upon him and is answered in the next verse with this solid Aphorism of eternal verity Be not thou overmuch wicked why shouldest thou die before thy time The fears and from thence the prudential but oft times very impious practices of the worldling are far the more probable path to the most hasty ruines And so still this branch of my doctrine as far as asserted by me was neither untruth nor miscarriage nor cause of either in my discourse 5. As for the second that of the extension or number of rites and ceremonies taken into the worship that there cannot be too many of them is as far from being my assertion as that which is most contrary For upon that head my conclusion is that as some rites or circumstances of time and place and gesture are absolutely necessary to Religion and the significativeness of them is no manner of prejudice to the use or institution of them so if the Disputers will yield but this that even when they are significative the use of Ceremonies may be allowed among Christians I shall then in stead of pleading for the multitude of such give my vote to the confirming the old Rule that they be paucae salubres few and wholsom and particularly few for five reasons set down in the following words Sect. 39. and sure that is contrary enough to his reporting of my opinion that there cannot be too many of them and so that which was no part of my belief could be no cause of any miscarriage of mine in that business 6. To which if I shall now add that my granting there ought to be few and so that there may be too many Ceremonies in a Church is no way the yielding a possibility that a man may be too religious but on the contrary when the too many Ceremonies either cause or occasion or are accompanied with inward neglects there is not too much but too little Religion too much formality but too little devotion too much outward Pharisaical washing but too little inward Christian fervor as there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words too many but too little praying I may adde too many offers of proof but too little reason and remind the Diatribist that this was expresly said before in the end of Sect. 39. by the token of the insectile animals whose want of blood caused their multitude of legs I shall then sure have given him ground of conviction that there were more then one calumnie in his assignation of the causes particularly in this of the first cause of my miscarriages Sect. 3. Mr. C. his distinctions of being too religious multiplied unnecessarily Frequency of duty if secured from other neglects no excess nor criminous Prayer a
be many acts of worship many circumstances of worship yea and many heights of Christian heroical virtue which may bear proportion with worship that are not under obligation from any particular command of Gods and so remain to be acts of the will or choise of man which are perfectly lawfull acceptable yea some highly rewardable by God and so far from the guilt which Mr. C. affixes of high indignity or affront to the divine Majestie What he addes of the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they are but twice apiece used in the Book of Wisdome and alway in an ill notion which saith he is but little to the credit of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might sure have been spared it being as certain and visible to him that the same word is used by St James c. 1. 27. in as good a sense as could be wisht with the epithets of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure and undefiled before God added to it and v. 26. for the profession of Christianity though for want of actions bridling the tongue and the like that becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain And as plain that the word is in it self equally applicable to the true as to the false indifferently to any religion to St Pauls religion among the Jews Act. 26. 5. the strictest sect of our religion to the worship of Angels Col. 2. 18. and so to the worship of Idols in the Book of Wisdome which yet can no more tend to the disadvantage of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when that is not terminated on any prohibited object then the use of the Latine cultus sometimes for the worship of false Gods can prejudge voluntarius cultus voluntary worship when either the object is not specified or the mention of the one true God is added to it It being confest and supposed by both parties in this contest that the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship it self is not culpable save onely when the other part of the composition the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the interposition of the will or as he will style it the devise or appointment of man hath an influence upon it Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. answered The difference betwixt Commands of Magistrates and imposition of dogmatizers What t is which is said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS 3d § is his entrance on the view of Col. 2. where onely the word Will-worship is to be found and in setting down his grounds of interpreting it 1. He citeth Beza and BP Davenant whose words are presently answered by adverting to the distinction formerly given between the essentials and circumstantials the parts and the ceremonies of worship 2dly He pretends to discover a mistake in me in that I observe from v. 22. that St Paul speaks not of commands but doctrines not of the prohibition of the Magistrate but of false teachers imposing them as the commands of God Whereas saith he the Apostle speaks expressely of these impositions that they were after the Commandments and doctrines of men v. 8. after the traditions of men to worship God by the observation of them Of which words of his if there be any shadow of force in them by way of exception against me the meaning must be that the Apostle there speaks of the commands or prohibitions of Magistrates in things of themselves perfectly indifferent and censures those commands under the style of will-Will-worship But then this hath no degree of truth in it for 1. The matter of the commands is no lawful matter but either the worship of Angels and that is criminous as the worshipping of a creature or the reducing of antiquated rites of Judaisme which ought not to be reduced being once cancelled and nailed to the cross of Christ 2. The commands were not commands of Magistrates but of men which had no authority to prescribe any thing especially so contrary to the doctrine which the Apostles had planted among them the Christian liberty from the Judaical yoke 3. The manner of imposing them was quite distant from that of the Magistrates giving laws Ecclesiastical or Civil those are by way of Canon as of things indifferent in order to decency and the like without ever pretending them to be in themselves necessary as commanded by God these are imposed as from God when they are not so and that is the known sin of dogmatizing to which I formerly applied the place And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commands signifies no more then so being joyned with and explicated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines i. e. such things as false teachers require all men to do in obedience to God or as if they were now commanded by him when some of them as abstinencies c. having once been required by God are now abolisht by Christ and the other the worship of Angels though it pretend not ever to have been commanded but onely to be acceptable to God is clearly forbidden by him So that here is a palpable mistake in the Diatribist who observes them to be commands meaning as he must if he censureth or opposeth me commands of Magistrates and not onely doctrines of false teachers when indeed commands and doctrines are all one both joyned together to signifie these dogmatizers pretending the things which they taught to be in force by Divine command by virtue of the Law given to Moses and not onely such as would be accepted by God as of the worship of Angels I suppose was pretended by those false teachers For this is to be remembred here once for all that the seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick hereticks who made up their Theologie of Judaical and heathenish additions to the Christian truth from the Jews they had many abstinences such as were now abolisht by Christ and those they imposed as commands of God when they were not and from the heathens the doctrine of the Aeones or Angels as creators of this inferior world and so such as might with Gods good liking be worshipt by us Lastly Those commands of theirs are not censured by the Apostle as acts of Will-worship or blamed or put under any ill character for being such any more then for being acts of humility which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with Will-worship in that place v. 22. but as intrenchments on that liberty purchased for them by the death of Christ v. 20. which had cancelled these Judaical ordinances to all that were dead with him i. e. to Christians and had turned all Daemon worship out of their hearts but had no way bound up the hands of his Apostles or their successors the Governors of the Church from instituting ceremonies or festivals among Christians When the Diatribist addes of Will-worship that it had a shew of wisdome but no more t is but a begging the question or if it pretend to be concluded from that text it is without
Will-worship and humility if Will-worship hath nothing of wise or good but only of wickednesse and that we know is folly in it Having premised these two things it is now very easie to discover the fallaciousnesse of all that is brought against me in this or the ensuing Sections For as to the interpretation of the verse which he proposeth and preferres before mine but without any convincing proof of the truth of it this is on his part a begging the question which even now was charged on me with much lesse reason and when he saith mine may prove a mistake t is sufficient to reply and so may his and the danger farre greater from the mistake on his side then or mine For if mine should be such yet will it not follow that the Ceremonies and Festivals of our Church are such criminous Will-worship the using of these bearing no analogy with the dogmatizing of the Gnosticks or their reviving the abolisht Iudaical abstinencies among Christians whereas if his interpretation should prove false and mine true his whole fabrick must utterly be demolisht and his major and minor having both failed the one affirming Will-worship to be criminous the other our using ceremonies and Festivals to be Will-worship his conclusion is not likely I hope to hold out long after unlesse it shall pretend to that miracle which is fancied of Callimachus and denominated him an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an immortal warrier and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the statue of Mars who is supposed to stand and fight after he was dead And then t is time to retreat from this combatant with the Epigrammatist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But then 2dly when he vilifies mine resolving it singular without any precedent ancient or modern Protestant or Papist First This hath no truth in it as will anon sufficiently appear At the present I shall only reminde him that within two years after the Treatise of will-Will-worship was printed came out Grotius's posthumous notes on the Epistles and those are clear for this interpretation and so though they could not be my precedent then will now secure me from singularity Secondly The Diatribist's interpretation is so far from being demonstratively true that it hath arrived to no degree of probability It is this that v. 23. contains a reason of the danger and destructivenesse of those abstinencies viz because they were no other nor better then Will-worship with a faire pretence of wisdom because the worship of God was lately placed in them and they carry a great pretension of humility and self-denyal in abstaining from things pleasing to the body But I demand 1. how doth it appear that this verse contains a reason of the destructivenesse of those abstinences 'T is not so much as introduced with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or any other form of proof but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which things indeed have a shew c. which is a form of extenuation as the Diatribist acknowledgeth in this § speaking of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then cannot reasonably be a proof of the destructivenesse of them but the conceding somewhat speciously at least in favour of them that they have indeed a shew of wisdom in them 2dly What words are there in that verse which can bear or give any pretence to that paraphrase that these abstinences are destructive because no better then Will-worship The words in the Diatribists own rendring are no more but this which things indeed have a shew of wisdom in Will-worship and humility But can this bear or induce this conclusion in any mood or figure Therefore they are destructive because no better then Will-worship Is it not much fairer and more reasonable which I concluded they have some shew of wisdom in Will-worship therefore Will-worship if it be truly such hath some reality of wisdom in it for else that which hath but a shew of wisdom in it cannot have that shew in respect of Will-worship Adultery being it self folly 't is absurd to say of any man or doctrine that it hath a shew of wisdom in adultery or in respect of the adultery that is in it for that were to affirm it to have a shew of wisdom in no other respect but that it is foolish I acknowledge indeed that as it was but a shew of wisdom which they had so it was but a shew of Will-worship or voluntary offering to God and so a shew of not a true humility but still that doth but the more confirm not confute my conclusion that Will-worship truly so called and humility that real virtue are branches of Christian wisdom or else the having but a shew of them would not give them so much as the shew of wisdom 3dly When the former part of his paraphrase is they are no other nor better then Will-worship how can that be coherent which follows in the second place that they carry a great pretension of humility and self-denial when those two are regularly joined with Will-worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Will-worship and humility and not sparing the body Certainly as the humility is such must the Will-worship be if the humility be only in pretension then so must the Will worship be also in pretension not in truth and then still the fault or defect will be in the bare pretending not in the Will-worship as it is not in the humility or self-denial by the Diatribists own confession but in the false pretending them How much then is it more reasonable to do what I did viz to allot to Will-worship and humility and self-denial to all three the same state whatsoever it be whether of virtue if they be really what they pretend or of hypocrisie if they be bare images or appearances of them And on this I insist as on the main ground of inforcing mine and invalidating his interpretation that Will-worship humility and self-denial being here placed together in the same classis or series they cannot be so separated as that one shall be a vice when the other two are acknowledged virtues in a Christian one really what it pretends and the other only feignedly or in pretence without any reality in them When the Diatribist shall answer this argument he may then tell others of mistaking but till then the mistake may much more probably be on his side Thirdly What the Diatribist addes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wisdom which I took in the ordinary notion of piety is sure more strange in him then what he censures in me in the Proverbs and elsewhere he acknowledges it must signifie piety but here it must not but literally wisdom to which purpose he cites Bishop Davenant who expresses it to denote some excellent doctrine rather brought from heaven then found out by men But if that be the meaning of it then sure as such those false teachers taught it i. e. as coming from heaven and that is as a doctrine of God and that was even now denied when I affirmed it 2dly How can
those always ill and this also But if Will-worship may be true as well as false then as I acknowledge a thing may have a shew of piety in respect of Will-worship meaning the good or true Will-worship and supposing S. Paul so to have meant and not any false or impious will-worship so by this one concession of the Diatribist after all this contention and scrupulosity and niceness the whole question is yielded me for it seems Will-worship may be true as well as false and so good as well as bad and here not confestly false or bad quod erat demonstrandum What now follows shewing that impious and false worship may have a shew of wisdome and piety to natural men is evidently impertinent to our debate or question which consists onely in this whether that which hath a bare shew of piety or wisdome can have it in respect of that which is confestly impious and foolish and therefore when he hath full scope to put it a little more home to me as he saith and yet can do no more but ask Whether zeal may not have a shew of true zeal and yet be nothing but rage and madness it is still to as little purpose equally beside the question And so when he asks Whether the Devil transforming himself into an Angel of light must have something really of light or piety in him or else cannot have so much as a shew of piety T is evident he may without having any reality of piety in him and yet it is as evident that if he have that shew of piety in respect of humility or charity or any thing else that humility or charity or whatsoever else must be of the number of those things that are accounted good and pious for otherwise his having the appearance or bare shew of them would not conclude him to have the appearance of piety The matter is evident enough if he will please to open his eyes I cannot have a shew of piety in Will-worship unless Will-worship be a branch of piety and so by proportion a shew of Will-worship a shew of piety His conclusion of this copious answer is yet more observable and according to his directions I shall note it once for all that the words are not which things have a shew of wisdome and will-Will-worship c. for then saith he as wisdome was good and taken in a good sense so might the rest be taken and the fault be that they had onely an appearance not the truth or power but the words are they have a shew of wisdome in will-Will-worship c. and if they were faulty because they had onely a shew of wisdome they will be more faulty that they had but a shew of piety or worship or humility All which I shall very easily grant and as in the latter part I shall fully comply with him that those doctrines of abstinences Col. 2. were faulty because though they had a shew of Will-worship and humility yet they had not the reality of those virtues in them so from the former part of his words I have all reason of analogie to conclude that will-Will-worship is taken in a good sense by its being evidently joyned with humility and self-denyal for those sure are good things also as well as wisdome and that all the fault was that the doctrines of abstinences had onely the appearance of those virtues not the truth or power of them How inevitably this conclusion is founded on these very premises given me by the Diatribist is so evident that I hope I shall not need farther to enlarge to shew it By the same reason that will-Will-worship must have been concluded good if it had been joyned with wisdome in this forme a shew of wisdome and of Will-worship it must certainly follow that Will-worship is good because it is joyned with humility in this forme in Will-worship and humility humility being as confestly good as wisdome is supposed to be and the fault of the abstinential doctrines still equal that they had onely the appearance not reality of all these Once more the utmost force of all is yet reserved for the close of the conclusion The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. saith he do no more inforce us to take it in a good sense then when we say Judas made a shew of love to Christ in his traiterous kiss and the Papists devotion in bowing to stocks and images But I desire that he set the words of his example so as may be exactly parallel to the words Col. 2. 23. the least change may have an influence on the matter and then it must be thus 1. Judas had not made a shew of love to Christ in his traiterous kiss and the Papists have a shew of devotion in bowing to stocks and images And 2. in stead of triterous must be placed some word which shall no more vary the kiss then the addition of Will varyes the worship for that the uncommandedness of worship makes it traiterous or so much as ill must not be supposed here where it is the onely question Having premised this I now answer to the example as it is by him set that as the words in the Apostle were certainly true so these words as they are now ill set are as undoubtedly false for consider the kiss with that so distinctive contrary adjunct as a traiterous kiss which addition as it is necessary to make it ill so it deprives it of all appearance of love and then Judas had no shew of love to Christ in this viz. in his traiterous kiss If indeed he had said Judas had a shew of love to Christ in kissing him or saluting him friendly then it had been true and then the conclusion had been evident that a kiss or friendly salute is an act or indication of love an hearty kiss of an hearty love and a feigned kiss of a feigned love or if the addition of traiterous kiss had made no greater a change then the addition of will or uncommandedness to worship then again it had been true But supposing the kiss to be a traiterous kiss viz. a kiss given as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or watchword whom and when the Souldiers should apprehend then sure he had no shew of love to Christ in that kisse And so in like manner if the proposition had been The Papists have a shew of devotion in bowing it had been true because adoration or bowing is a species or indication of devotion but because Idolatry is neither of these and bowing to stocks and images is Idolatry there can therefore be no truth in that proposition set as by the Diatribist it is set and supposed to be delivered by any Orthodox pen for such sure was the Apostle's to his Colossians but the direct contradictory will be true and clear to all that count bowing to stocks and images a sin For to them the Papists have no shew of devotion in bowing to stocks or images no shew of piety but
for his charge at the end of § 39. that I make difference betwixt Apostolical and divine institutions and therein vary from my resolution of the first Quaere § 22. It is soon dispatcht by acknowledging I do not think that the Apostles were God and thereupon for perspicuity sake I made these several heads of institutions some by Christ some by the Apostles inspired and commissionated by Christ the former I called Divine the second Apostolical as that is not personally and immediatly divine yet not at all doubting or giving any cause of doubt whether the latter were not of divine original and obligation also wherein sure I spake after the example and manner of men and that in order to distinctnesse and perspicuity not foreseeing such cavils as this when I thus spake 8thly What follows of Wil-worship in the end of this Exercitation must be reserved to the next Exercitation which is the place designed for it and for the Diatribist to take it here for granted as he doth that my voluntary oblation is an eminent Species of Superstition against which punishment is denounced in the second Commandment when he knowes that whole Tract of Wil-worship undertakes to demonstrate the contrary what is this but a meer begging of the Question and that a prime sort of fallacious arguing the solemn refuge of those which are destitute of all other Sect. 11. A Vindication of the Tract of Superstition from uncharitableness THese few things being thus shortly replyed to by way of Stricture there remains now no more on this first head of discourse but to vindicate and approve my charity to the Diatribist as I have hitherto done my doctrine against him And as this is by his conclusion imposed on me as my task so I doubt not but to find it an easy one if he will weigh my actions in the same balance which he useth for his own nay I wish he could as easily clear himself who hath thus judged me His words are these § 43. by way of conclusion of that first Exercitation And now the Dr. may be pleased to review and if he will recal his bitter false uncharitable conclusion § 57. 58. unbeseeming both his piety and gravity For now it will appear that the charge of Superstition on some men is no Mormo nor yet unjust but what is avowed by himself and party to be their opinion and practise and what is proved to be really Superstitious according to the true notion of the word Superstition among Reformed Orthodox Divines In obedience to his admonition and in a solemne dread of having said any thing bitterly falsely and uncharitably and without any manner of incitation against the Diatribist who useth this language which if it be not found to have perfect truth in it must be acknowledged to be very uncharitable I need not adde bitter toward me I have warily and suspiciously reviewed those Sections and I shall desire the indifferent Reader to do so too and to tell me what syllable or minutest part of them there is which can any way deserve from any dispassionate person the title either of false in any degree or of uncharitable or bitter in relation to any man then or now living For this I must premise that the severest Satyre against a vice and not a person which carries perfect truth and justice in it that represents a damnable sin in the uglyest colours and no otherwise reflects upon the person of any man then as his own conscience shall be thus awakened with a sight of his own guilt is so far from either uncharitable or bitter unless in the notion wherein the wholesomest Physick or most necessary Chirurgery must undergo the same censure that it is the greatest and most obliging Christian act of mercy and kindness and soveraign charity that piety and gravity can suggest to any And unless it asperse by affixing such vices to particular persons especially those who are not guilty of them as here the Diatribist hath in plain words affixt that foul sin of Superstition on the Dr. personally and inlarged it to his party which he knows must involve all the obedient sonnes of the Church of England for the Dr. cannot with any tolerable charity be said or thought to be of any other party there is no ground of charge of the least asperity in this And then it is most certain that those 2 Sections can no wise fall under this censure the summe of them being no more but this that if the crime of Superstition were fastned on none but those on whom the Scripture directs to fasten it all that have opposed our Church in point of rites and ceremonies and branded the innocent as guilty of no less crime then Superstition must be obliged to return to peace and charity and perswasions of kindness toward us whereas the contrary humor of those who oppose and maligne our Church daily inflames and advances into that diabolical sin of calumniating and accusing the most innocent observances of those whom they have undertaken to oppose and never considers or looks on those many grosser crimes spirituall pride uncharitableness faction nay sacrilege and profaness it self with so much expression of aversion or dislike as on the usage of a few and wholesome ceremonies This is as neer as I can briefely paraphrase it the sense of those two Sections and all the asperity that is there discoverable is but this that enemies and calumniators have learnt two of the Devils attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as long as this hath palpable truth in it and when I applied it not so much as in my thoughts either to this Diatribist whose name I think I had never heard of nor to any other particular person and as long as it was visible that there was such enmity abroad in this nation which thus fortified it self by calumniating others and it being certain that it was perfect duty of charity to indevour the deterring and preserving brethren and fellow Christians from such guilts and dangers and that the pointing at other sinnes that much more justly deserved censure might be usefull to that end by way of but necessary diversion I can with perfect peace of mind review those Sections not discerning any man or virtue moral or Christian any branch of either part of my duty against which I have offended And I now desire the Diatribist if he be not fully of my perswasion that he descend to the particularity and tell me the man in the world to whom I was in those Sections uncharitable or bitter and first to whom uncharitable and then for the falseness that hath by all this reply to this Diatribe been I hope sufficiently contested And having said thus much in vindication of my self I can very well abstain from making use of the advantage which is here visibly given me of more then recriminating I am so well
a Christian virtue and that the only fault is that it is not what it pretends to be and so that is still a valid argument for the good sense of the word Will-worship though not of the disguise and false appearance of it the bare shew even of divine worship it self being acknowledged to have nothing of good in it which yet certainly the reality of it hath As for that of the Self-denial it is saith he not only a counterfeit but an impious mistaken mortification viz when t is made a worship of God and he instances in the Romish ridiculous Penances Pilgrimages c. and asks what t is that makes them impious mistaken mortification not their being held forth as commands of God for that they deny it must be then saith he because they make them worships of God voluntary worship Here again the former reply is in force if it be the counterfeitnesse and impiety of the mortification that defames it then still the self-denial and mortification truly so called is a Christian virtue and then that will conclude the Will-worship to be so too if it be truly what it pretends to be As for his instance and question founded on it it answers it self for as it is not their holding it forth as the command of God so neither is it their making it the worship of God that renders it culpable but the ridiculousness of it which he mentions the unfitness or inordinableness to that end to which it is designed such laniations of our own bodies being on that account and by their affinity to the bloody sacrifices under the Law deprived of all appearance of being acceptable to God and so for all other sorts which are not either regular effects of Godly sorrow or designed as expedients to make it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lasting and durable repentance as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 revenge 2 Cor. 7. 11. is defined to be For whatsoever is truly so I must not be so injurious to it as to doubt of the acceptation with God or to censure it either as impious or ridiculous My 2d. reason for the taking Will-worship in a good sense was this because these abstinences are said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether that be some small reality or else a bareshew of wisdome in respect of the Will-worship discernible in them neither of which they could be said to have if Will-worship had past with St Paul for foolish or impious for how can a thing be said to have so much as a shew of piety in respect to any sin as lust or rage discernible in it To this his answer is long and perplext 1. By rejecting that notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for any degree of real wisdome And to this I that did not really adhere to that will not be so far concerned in it as to make any reply or at all to indevour to defend it or to adde of it farther then this that the bare possibility that it might so signifie supersedes all demonstrativeness of proof from this text for the criminousness of Will-worship But upon this occasion he takes liberty to consider the Apostles words of bodily exercise 1 Tim. 4. 8. and of that affirmes when it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable for a little the meaning is t is profitable for nothing nay hurtfull and abominable To this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I must interpose that this is a very strange and groundless interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable for a little i. e. for nothing and even less then so hurtfull and abominable It is as if when Agrippa tells Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little way thou perswadest me to be a Christian he should interpret it that Agrippa was not at all perswaded by him toward Christianity but on the other side was more confirmed in his Gentilisme To this purpose it is observable that although the bodily exercise in that text be by some of the antients understood of bodily labour yet they which do so render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to signifie somewhat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it profits the body a little and for a while saith St Chrysostome and Theophylact and so we know it doth and S. Hierome in like manner ad breve tempus in carnali proficiunt sanitate they are for a short time profitable in respect of bodily health and so likewise those others of the Antients Ambrose c. who understand it of fasting so doth Leo also Serm de jejun 7. mensis sometimes in that phrase of corporum labor the labor of bodies Serm 2. sometimes of exercitatio continentiae quam sibi quisque proprio arbitrio indicit the exercise of abstinence which every one by his own choice layes on himself Serm 3. conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote some degree of profit utilitatem cujusdam portionis saith Leo though not so great as belongs to that which is understood by piety in the next words Thus the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies among the Rabbins that which is in some degree profitable but within certain bounds and so also among the Greeks as when Plato saith of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates is a little to be considered but truth a great deal and proportionably here the comparison lyes bodily exercise is profitable for a little but godliness is profitable for all things As for his censure that by consequence to this interpretation he fastens on bodily exercise in this notion taking it for abstinences from meats and mariage without relation to that of the Dogmatizers teaching and requiring that abstinence as from things forbidden by God i. e. in effect on bare voluntary fasting and celibacie when they are onely used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for exercise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with detestation of mariage or meats as the antient Canons have it viz. that they are hurtfull and abominable I need say no more but that it is an ungrounded and unwary affirmation no way to be justified or excused unless still he relieve himself at the dead lift with the supposition that they are made the worship of God And then again as that cannot be applied to abstinence from mariage in his notion of worship for even they that make that a thing acceptable to God and a state of perfection do not count it a worship unless in a generall sense as every virtuous act performed to God may be styled worship and so this being not under precept but commended a Will-worship so being applied to abstinence from meats it can be of no very good consequence For Fasting hath long been numbred among the sorts of Christian sacrifice and is so set down by Aquinas from that of S t Paul of offering up our bodyes a sacrifice to God Rom. 12. which saith he is done by fasting continence martyrtome Leo calls it continentiae libamen the sacrifice of abstinence And St Hierome speaking
casting down the works of the Creator de jejun c. 15. And the like intimations of the opinion of hereticks we meet frequently in the Fathers who give their cautions against this Non re iâ—iendis generibus ciborum quasi pollutis August de mor Eccl Cath l. 1. c. 33. escarum non naturas sed concupiscentias damnent Prosper de vit contempl l. 2. c. 22. And many the like And among the Papists no meaner person then Durand speaks much to this sense that those old hereticks did though the generality of the Papists seem not to approve or follow him God saith he cursed the earth and from thence it is that in fasting 't is unlawful to eat any flesh that is upon the earth beasts and birds c. Rat. divin Off. l. 6. c. 7. But this by the way Next then taking the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify only a shew of piety he cannot but wonder at my question How abstinences can have so much as a shew of piety in Will-worship if Will-worship passe confestly for foolish and impious bidding me ask all inpreters who render the words a shew of wisdom in superstition or affected religion how this can be But before I shall ask them I must have some assurance from this Diatribist that all interpreters do so render it for otherwise my question will be lost in the aire and never bring me home any answer But of this I am well enough advised that all interpreters do not thus render it I shall instance as even now I did in the learned Grotius as valuable I believe as any that will be brought for the Diatribist's interpretation and besides any one asserter of mine interpretation and certainly Grotius is one confutes his assertion of all interpreters However unlesse I can be farther assured that he or they whom the Diatribist takes for all doth also take notice of and render some answer to my question what shall I gain by asking them And if they do answer it why would not the Diatribist be so kinde as to recite it from them But this I am sure he hath not done by asking me again Cannot a thing have ashâ—w of wisdom or piety which is confessedly foolish or impious and if so may it not be so in respect of the Will-worship in it I answer that if I take the question in the terms wherein it is proposed it is no way of answering my question but the diverting to a very distant matter For when he asks may it not be so in respect of the Will-worship in it the plain importance of his words is may it not be foolish or impious in respect of the Will-worship that is in it not may it not have a shew of wisdom or piety in respect of the Will-worship for it is visible that be so referres to is foolish and not to have a shew And then there is a faire fallacie put upon the Reader the termes of my question and of the text quite changed and others substituted in stead of them and then I confess that supposing Will-worship as ill as the Diatribist would have it a thing may be foolish or impious in respect of Will-worship But let the question be fairely set cannot a thing that is foolish and impious have a shew of wisdome in respect of Will-worship And then as I shall answer it may so I must adde that then that Will-worship must be taken in a good sense for else that foolish thing could not have a shew of wisdome or piety in Will-worship If a fool have any shew of wisdome in him it must be sure not in respect of his folly but of some particular or other which is by him that speaks accounted wisdome and that he must have in him either in reality or in appearance or else how can he have any shew of wisdome If Satan have the shew or appearance of an Angel of light it must be in respect to something which he doth or pretends to do which is Angelical As for the instances with which he prosecutes this it must be a strange shortness of discourse if he can think they evince his conclusion He exemplifies in the Baalitical lancing and the Popish penances and supposing the former impious and the latter not onely ridiculous but heathenish yet these saith he had a shew of piety But what if they had was it ever denyed or questioned by me but that impious persons or actions might have a shew of piety for sure I always knew there were hypocrites in the world but my question he knows was how any thing can have a shew of piety in respect of that very thing which is impious This was the onely question that belonged to the affair betwixt us and certainly the Diatribist's instances are very remote from that for the Baalites shew of piety consisted not in their bloody lancing of themselves nor the Papists in their as bloody penances but either in the reality or appearance of that detestation of sinne and that zeal which make them submit themselves to so much smart It was very necessary then for him in the pursuite of this when he again recites my question But saith the Doctor can any thing be represented to me as having so much as a shew of piety in respect of lust or rage discernible in it to tell the Reader that this comparison is ill laid For if this be well laid then sure his setting of the question is foully out of the way But why is it ill laid is it not directly a way of tryall whether will-worship be set by the Apostle in an ill notion For if it be then somewhat else which is acknowledgedly ill and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rage and lust the two principles of sensuality were the fittest I could think on of this sort to instance in being put in the stead of it the Apostles words would still continue to have truth and congruity in them viz. that such a thing hath a shew of piety in it in respect of lust or rage This it seems was too gross for him to swallow and therefore and upon no other reason but because it made the truth most palpable the comparison saith he was ill laid But 't is yet more strange if we consider his reason of excepting against this comparison For rage saith he and lust are for kind confessedly wicked things And truly that was the reason why I instanced in them to shew that a thing cannot have a shew of good in respect of that which is confestly bad which I could not have shewed in those instances if they might have been good as well as bad but worship saith he may be true or false I shall then onely ask whether Will-worship may so too for that he knows is the word we contend about If it may not but is always false then still it is directly parallel to lust and rage in this wherein the comparison was made
only of impiety in Idolatry And thus I hope I have at length vindicated this 2d argument for the good sense of the word from all the evasions and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and truly there have been good store of them and I believe this Section his masterpiece of dexterity and therefore I have so punctually and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insisted on it from all the subtile refuges of this Diatribist Sect. 11. The Greek Fathers acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An argument of goodness that 't is pretended by hypocrates Religion in a good sense Will-worship not worse then false worship not abominable All devised worship is not Idolatry doth not pretend to more wisdom then Gods The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Translator and the followers thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the vulgar rendred decernitis The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the good sense The testimonies out of Ambrose Theodoret Salmeron Estius Augustine Thomas examined MY third reason being taken from the Greek fathers understanding of the place who though they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of appearance yet paraphrase Will-worship by words of good savour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pious religious c. The Diatribist begins with a triumph and ovation First saith he this is well that the Greek Fathers agree with us in exposition of the first words a shew not as he somewhat real of wisdom nay they expressely oppose against it power and truth and can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worship of God be taken in a good sense And do not the Fathers imply as much Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he seems to be religious but is not so Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending religion in worship And is there any goodnesse in hypocrisie Here truly it is not to be reprehended but cherished in the Diatribist that he is so very much rejoyced to hear the newes that the Greek Fathers and he are of a minde in any the least particular I hope it will incourage and ingage him to a more familiar conversation with them and then I am perswaded no body will have reason to repent of it All that I am to complain of at the present is first that their interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew should be deemed an agreement with him more then with me who he knowes have produced them and never exprest any dislike to that interpretation All the difference between us being but this that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two rendrings rationem and speciem I that desired to proceed on sure grounds proposed them both and which soever should be adhered to shewed the necessity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken in a good sense T is true indeed if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be there taken for ratio the argument for the good sense would proceed most irresistibly But supposing it with the Fathers to signifie species a bare shew or appearance yet the argument holds very firmly thus also the Gnostick doctrines cannot have so much as a shew of piety in Will-worship unlesse Will-worship real be piety real and the appearance of Will-worship a foundation of an appearance of piety And this being the sense of the Fathers which rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare shew this sure was fit to be confronted to the Diatribist's pretensions as a third argument And is it not now a strange way of answer to this argument to ask as he here doth Can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worship of God be taken in a good sense I reply by demanding what it is of which the Fathers say that it hath neither power nor truth Sure the doctrines of abstinence and not the Will-worship And yet his answer proceeds as if they supposed it of the Will-worship and without that hath no appearance of force in it And is not this a strange perverting of plain words Chrysostome saith the false teacher seems to be pious but is not and Oecumenius that he simulates piety and from hence Mr. C. concludes that Will-worship is not taken in a good sense But I pray is not piety taken in a good sense even when the hypocrite simulates piety Nay would he pretend to it if it were not good Doth a hypocrite pretend to that which is acknowledgedly ill This were sure to appear what he is and that is contrary to his being an hypocrite The product is plain Will-worship is rendred by piety not by appearance of piety unless piety it self can be taken there in an ill sense Will-worship must be taken in a good sense Certainly I need adde no more 't is pity I should be required to say so much of this matter But on occasion of the interpreter of Clemens who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in religione from whence I thought I might conclude it that mans sense that Will-worship signifies religion and so that it was not taken in an ill sense he is pleased to ask Why Is not religion it self of various senses The simple word signifies false religion as well as true but the composition makes it worse and alters the sense because it addes the work of mans will to worship which is abominable to God What depth there is in this question will soon appear For 1. What if both religio and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of various senses and signifie false religion as well as true heathen or Judaical as well as Christian Is there any appearance of reason to determine it to the former in this place or in that interpreters acception of it If there be then there is an account of the words being taken in an ill sense without any influence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mans will upon it if there be not as he is obliged to affirm there is not saying p. 69 that the Apostle brands them as destructive because they are but Will-worship not because they are outdated or Judaical much lesse then because they are any more dangerous sort of false worship such as was used among the heathens then what matters it what in other places it signifie whensoever the adjuncts or context so determine it unlesse it do or can be pretended to do so here This being premised that which follows is yet more strange that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying false religion as well as true the composition makes it worse worse then what then false religion This is fairly to resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God is worse then false religion indefinitely i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition and the reason annext is of the same temper adding the work of mans will is abominable to God Here indeed is a foundation of charge of Idolatry or whatever is most abominable on this poor Church of ours for the bare using of any most innnocent ceremony
But this all the while incumbent on the Diatribist to prove and as it will not be granted for asking so it is not so neerly approaching toward truth as to want any farther answer then the reciting of it I cannot yet be so uncharitable to Mr. C. as to imagine it his serious opinion that kneeling in prayer or thanksgiving to God on purpose to expresse our lowly reverence to him or bowing at the name of Jesus in token that we believe him to be the eternal God in opposition to the ancient or modern Arians and Socinians is abominable to God and worse then false religion And though his following question confirms this to be his opinion Do not all Idolaters pretend wisdom in their inventions citing in the margent Psal 106. 39. went a whoring with their own inventions yet t is not to be believed that he can in earnest thence conclude Therefore all inventions of men are Idolatry and worse then Idolatry If he can 't is sufficient to reply that though all Idolatry be invented and devised worship yet all inventions of men are not Idolatry though every beast be a living creature yet every living creature is not a beast And so that though Idolatrous Will-worship be abominable to God yet all Will-worship is not Idolatrous Once more he presseth this argument Doth not saith he this pretence of wisdom make it more odious to God as taking upon them to be wiser then he and more devout then he requires But it may suffice once for all that he that useth an uncommanded ceremony in the service of God doth not take upon him to be wiser then God but walking regularly in obedience to the divine rule wheresoever there is any particularly given acts according to reason and the more universal rules of Decency c. where God hath not particularly prescribed any thing And so again in acts of uncommanded devotion doing that voluntarily out of love to God which God requires not sub periculo animae and so which is not extorted by fear either of offending or suffering this is again no elevating our own wisdome above Gods but our making use of those advantages and those liberties which God in his wisdome chose to afford us that there might be somewhat for us freely to exercise his graces upon and so for him as freely to reward in us And of this there is no fear that it shall ever be counted any irregular acting and having God's promise to be rewarded it is safe from being odious or abominable before him Thus I hope I have vindicated the good sense of the word as farre as in my 3d. Reason I pretended from the Greek Fathers concurrence with me As for the Latines and later interpreters to which the Diatribist now calls me and asks me why I did not tell him how they rendred the word To this I answer that as I have not commodity to examine all those interpreters in this matter so I did not think my self obliged to do it having never pretended that the notion which I give is universally received by all Expositors I acknowledge that all men have not rendred the word in a good sense particularly that the vulgar Latine reads it Superstitio though in what acception of that word I know not most probably in an ill sense but sure this with no more truth or analogie for so interpreting then is for their interpreting the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by decernitis v. 20. which is no less then to change subjection into command undergoing a yoke into imposing of it one contrary into another However from thence t is nothing strange that the ill sense should be transfused into those Expositors which follow and never depart from that Latine translation neither examining the original word nor the context to reforme that translation by it This was the task which I then undertook and having found the context to incline it to a good sense and the Greek word to bear it very well and the Greek Fathers to concur with me in their notion of it I thought I might lawfully question the authority of the vulgar Latine and those who had been lead by it and so we know are the Papists and from them others also who do not take notice who t is that leads them and attempt that here which I saw ordinarily practised by all other sorts of men the Learned Papists themselves and I doubt not by this Diatribist when he conceives himself to have reason for it i. e. depart from their words and conduct as in other so in this particular In so doing I now see without any search that I have such a concurrence as will secure it from any censure of singularity Beside the Greek Fathers forementioned the Diatribist tells me I have Bellarmine's consent adding some other Papists also and I hope his authority alone were considerable enough if there were not also some others to weigh in the balance with Salmeron and Estius which are all the modern Expositors here cited by him And among the Protestants to Hugo Grotius already cited I now adde Monsieur Daillé in his late tract de Jejuniis written ex instituto against Bellarmine and yet in this place of St Paul contested between them he expressely acknowledges with Bellarmine the very thing that I concluded viz. that those false teachers had a threefold colour of wisdome 1. In Will-worship 2. In humility 3. In austerity to the body for which three things they admire these their doctrines of men defining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cultum sponte voluntariè assumtum nulla cogente Dei lege a worship undertaken voluntarily and of their own accord without any law of God constraining them and again that by the whole discourse of the Apostle it appeares that they commended and set off their doctrines of abstinence by this that voluntarily ex quadam zeli sanctificationis abundantiâ susciperentur they were voluntarily undertaken out of an abundance of zeal and holiness And so in his opinion if abundance of zeal and holiness were taken in a good sense Will-worship must be resolved to be so taken And so this Exposition of that learned man who will not be deemed partial to me against the Diatribist may now deserve to be considered by him as soon as the contrary of any modern Expositor produced or I believe producible by him For as to those antient Latine Fathers whom he hath already produced they are but three Ambrose Hierom and the vulgar Latine and those three may be reduced also and in fine will amount to little more then the one single vulgar Translator This is generally supposed to be St Hierome and if it be not t is certainly somebody whom St Hierome followed St Hieromes short notes on the Epistles being affixt to that translation and so St Hieromes name is no addition to that onely served the Diatribists turn as in a false muster to bear two names to appear twice and
fill two spaces in his catalogue And for the onely Father now remaining St Ambrose if those Comments be his which go under his name they will bring no great prejudice to our pretensions for by paraphrasing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by simulatione religionis all that can be concluded is that those doctrines of abstinence had not any reality but onely a false guise of religion in them and so it follows there Hinc se sapientiae rationem habere putant quia traditioni humanae nomen religionis applicant religio appellatur cum sit sacrilegium Hence they think themselves to have some appearance of wisdome because they apply the name of religion to humane tradition and it is called religion when it is sacrilege And this I may casily grant and consequently that the Will-worship here and so likewise the humility were not either of them truely such and so offended in this that they were not what they pretended to be and would not have been criminous if they had been really such which still devolves all the fault on the doctrines and on the hypocrisie not on the Will-worship or Religion whose name would never have been pretended to by hypocrites if it had not been good See § 7. of this ch n. 10. Mean while I guess not how Theodoret which is acknowledged to be a Greek Father came to be ranked among the Latines and a Latine interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited out of him However I never pretended that all either Greek or Latine or particularly that he concurred with me in this sense therefore am not obliged to give any farther account of his interpretation Onely this I am sure of that t is not the uncommandedness of the worships that he finds fault with but 1. Their teaching those for Gods commands which are their own That is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their introducing their own ordinances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their unseasonable Judaical doctrine and 2dly Their bare shew of piety and humility without the truth of either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas by by his conclusion it is most evident that the abstinences without the doctrines would not have been deemed by him reproveable and so not the bare uncommandedness of the worship for thus we have it in the close 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For abstinences ought to be by counsell not as from detestable but as from the most delectable things Which is the very thing which all this while we have endevoured to conclude from that place After these his Latine Fathers he hastens to later interpreters and those are two Salmeron and Estius and those two are one again the one taking from the other as the manner is without any considerable difference But to give his Testimonies their full weight we will view them distinctly Salmeron begins with observing that whereas the Vulgar Latine reads in Superstitione and humilitate non ad parcendum corpori the Greek hath onely three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which three saith he sunt tres colores ostendentes rationem specimen sapientiae are three colours shewing a specimen which by the way is more then speciem or bare shew some real evidence of that wisdome to which those doctrines of abstinences pretended And the first of these saith he signifies cultum spontaneum sive voluntariam religionem a spontaneous worship or voluntary religion pro arbitrio cujusvis abstinendi a cibis of absteining from meats as every man shall think fit and afterwards illâ voce alludit ad voluntarias oblationes legis quae nedaboth dicuntur Deut. 16. Amos 5. By this word he alludes to the voluntary oblations of the Law which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then I shall desire the Diatribist to consider how fitly Salmeron was called out to give testimony against me he and one more in the name of all later interpreters when it is evident from these words that he saith the very same thing which all this while I contend for if I could have thought fit to have defended my self from singularity by his Testimony T is true indeed he conceives the words to allude to v. 18. volens in humilitate religione and so goes along with Estius and others in that mistake which I had taken notice of in them and that might have easily led him into farther mistake if the evidence of the truth or some other better guide had not rectified him But as it is I have no reason to complain of him as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is now before us Somewhat more he addes of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifying saith he the virtue of humility is here used for a feigned humility which is contrary to the Gospel because by it the Judaizers Evangelio legem admiscebant mixt the law with the Gospel And as this is also perfectly concordant to my notions so to this it is that he brings the testimonies of Augustine and Thomas and not for the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Diatribist cites them out of Estius However to manifest my care of profiting by all his animadversions I shall view those testimonies also The one thing which Salmeron cites from both of them is this that omnis ritus colendi Deum qui à Deo non est nec à Spiritu sancto per Ecclesiam traditus sed voluntate hominum inventus superstitiosus est every rite of worshipping God that is not delivered from God nor from the holy Ghost by the Church but is invented by the will of man is superstitious Where it seems that which is delivered by the Church being by him supposed to be from the holy Ghost doth in no degree fall under this censure And then the Diatribist hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation As for Estius his main endeavour in the interpretation of the verse is to evince that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies speciem in genere sive veram sive falsam a species in general whether true or false which is very little for the Diatribists advantage for granting it to signifie species if that should prove a true one then that is perfectly destructive to his interests for such a species of wisdom nothing could have in Will-worship if Will-worship were supposed to be impious and foolish And if it should prove a false species and so a bare shew of wisdom yet is that very reconcileable with the good notion of Will-worship as hath oft been shew'd What followes in him is saith he secundum Augustinum Thomam according to Augustine and Thomas that these abstinences have rationem sapientiae non verae sed ejus quae sita est in superstitione humilitate quae falsa est sapientia not true wisdom but that which is placed in superstition and humility which is false wisdome But where Augustine or Thomas give him authority to pretend their accord with him
by perfection according to the Commandments he will allow me to mean as the words literally import that sort and degree of perfection which the Commandments of the Gospel allow of very well though they require it not of every man or lay it under precept then I shall not doubt to approve the perfection which I instance in viz. that of martyrdome to be such unless when some discharge of known duty or yet greater good calls us another way and if this be the doctrine of Papists I hope yet that all Protestants are not therefore bound to disclaim it I never heard that our old English reformation which I thought had been sealed by the blood of many martyrs had lookt on martyrdome as a conceited Popish perfection And if this be the privilege of the present deformation to exclude martyrdome out of the catalogue of virtues as the Martyrs and Saints out of our Calendars if this Diatribist be now one of that Triumphant Church which hath thrown all cross from their shoulders and disclaimed all pretensions to this conceited perfection and resolved all to be Papists which shall thus communicate with the sufferings of Christ and observe this conformity with the image of Gods son Rom. 8. I shall only tell him that I shall be very well pleased to be guilty of this piece of Popery and to suffer from this sword of the tongue till God please to call me to any higher tryals Mean while when the Apostle and the Church which hath transcribed his style have used the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfected by sufferings and called martyrdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection I cannot retract that style what envy soever fall on me for the using it What now followes in pursuit of this matter Does God call all men at all times to martyrdome Is there any command for all men to be martyred c. is directly the evincing my assertion against himself for upon that very foundation it is that I superstruct therefore Martyrdome which is the highest degree of perfection is not under any command Quod erat demonstrandum In my third answer which was that perfection here had degrees in it and consequently supposing men bound to be perfect Mat. 5. 48. yet it followes not that they are bound to the highest degree of perfection his answer is he will grant this and yet deny my voluntary oblations still But how can that be when that higher degree of perfection is supposed to be under no precept and so to be free and so when arrived to a voluntary oblation But his grant it seems was only conditional for it followes in his words For we say there are degrees of or rather to perfection here upon condition that he will grant that every degree even the highest is required by the law of God and what is short of that highest is so far culpable This condition I confesse I cannot perform and so must lose the advantage of his grant And truly to require it of me is to grant my premises and require me to renounce my conclusion For from that concession that there are degrees in perfection and there may be perfection where yet there is not the highest degree of perfection it infallibly follows that the highest degree of perfection is not under obligation of that precept which requires no more then that we be perfect as when the precept binds to no more then to be mercifull in some degree it is evident that it binds not to be mercifull in the highest degree and consequently that the highest degree of mercy shall be still free under no obligation of precept In this matter he desires to speak his own sense in St Hieromes words Charitas quae non potest augeri c. citing Ep. 62 for it But this citation is sure mistaken there is no such thing in that Epistle The place sure is in St Hieromes Epistle to St Augustine where he desires his sense of those words Jam. 2. 10. He that keeps the whole Law and offends in one point is guilty of all On which occasion he discourseth a great while how one virtue may be found in them which yet are guilty of other sins and so from one thing to another not by way of defining but by raising of difficulties to provoke St Augustines solution of them And on these termes he purposes his notion of virtue that it is the loving of that which is to be loved and is in some greater in some less in some none at all and then addes Plenissima verò quae jam non possit augeri quamdiu homo hîc vivit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profectò illud quod minus est quà m à ebet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est justus in terrâ qui faciat bonum non peccet c. But the most full virtue such as cannot be increased is in no man as long as he lives here But as long as it may be increased that which is less then it ought to be is faulty whereby it is that the Scripture saith that there is not a just man on earth which doth good and sinneth not and in thy sight shall no man living be justified and if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves c. By this view of the place it is evident that the virtue which on occasion of the place in St James he speaks of being an universall impartial observation of the whole Law and consequently every failing in that a vice for to that all the proofs belong that there is no man but sinneth sometimes there is no reason to extend his speech any farther then to this and then it will in no wise be appliable to our business which is onely of the degrees of this or that particular virtue which it is certain that man may have who yet is guilty of some sin in other particulars This therefore I willingly acknowledge that he that failes of any part of his duty is therein faulty or this is ex vitio in him and if of that onely S Hieromes words quamdiu augeri potest be understood as it is most reasonable they should whether wee judge by the occasion or the proofes of his speech or by the express words quod minus est quà m debet ex vitio est that which is less then it ought i. e. less then he is bound to do is faulty then as I fully consent to the truth of them so when that is granted no man can hence infer therefore every regular act of obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin for beside many other inconveniences formerly noted this fresh one will be observable from St Hieromes own words that then every act of virtue in this life is a sin for as for that fullest perfection which cannot be increased the beginning of this testimony acknowlegeth that it is not to be found in any man in
now say they are evil I answer I will not say they are evil but they are good though not perfect from all possible mixture of sin And what now he can gain from this his question thus answered by me as he expects I should answer it it will not be easie for any man to imagine For sure this is the confirming not the disproving of my argument For by his own setting it it is manifest that those things are not evil which yet are capable of a greater perfection and then the perfection being the superlative the positive is supposed to be good and not evil and yet evil it must have been if every thing which is inferiour to the most perfect were sin or if the highest perfection were under Precept What he addes out of Gregory that all humane justice is convinced to be injustice if it be strictly judged is 1. contrary to his former question to me will he now say they are evil whatsoever the Doctor think the Diatribist it seems will say they are convinced to be injustice and that I must suppose is evil and is not this great inconstancy in him 2. It is of no force against my pretensions for when I said such a thing is good and another best I never meant that either of them is not convincible by Gods strict judgement to have some mixture of evil but that the evil which is or may be adherent to it in some other respect as of all humane actions is acknowledged being pardoned by God in Christ the lower degree being good i. e. an act of obedience to Christs command that which is higher and so better then that may yet be somewhat which he hath not commanded and so still a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Christian And thus much on occasion of the several degrees and passages of my answer to the first objection which I foresaw that which was taken from the consideration of what Prudence might advise and seem to require of us which hath proved a business of some length 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 TO the 2d objection from those large comprehensive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. I answer'd thus that that phrase with all c. denoted onely two things 1. The sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided love to which I now adde for farther explication that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law we do out of love toward God not hypocritically or as by constraint and 2. not admitting any thing else into competition with him this sincere love of God mean while being capable of degrees so that it is very possible for two men to love God with all the heart and yet one to love him more intensely then another as was exemplified among the very Angels nay for the same person which so loves him to love him and express that love more intensely at one time then another as appeared by the example of Christ Lu. 22. 44. Now to this he replies that these two are there required but not onely these but perfect love such as casts out fear 1 Joh. 4. 18. such as was in Adam in innocency To which I need say no more then what hath formerly been said that even that perfect love which was in Adam in innocence consisted not in any indivisible point but had a latitude and consequently severall degrees of that perfect love But then withall it must be remembred that the perfect love 1 Joh. 4. 18. is not all one with that which Adam had in innocence for that he confesseth is not acquirable in this life whereas the love in St John that casts out fear is in every Confessor and Martyr for Christ and is elsewhere styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 love of Christ in sincerity Eph. 6. 24. in the notion wherein perfection is all one with sincerity But then this also is capable of degrees one Martyr or Confessor may be more zelous express more intense and fervent love then another doth What he addes and confirmes out of Hierome was in one part answered before and must not now be repeated As for the other it may answer it self one part being directly contrary if not contradictory to the other For when he hath admitted and allowed of the supposition that sincere love is capable of degrees either in one man at severall times or in two men at the same time and so both obey the precept yet saith he those degrees argue love not to be perfect and so far faulty in vitio But sure if those of whom the supposition is made do both obey the precept then they do not offend against it if they do not offend against it then is not this faulty or in vitio for sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law The evidence of the matter may it seems extort some few words of truth from a gainsayer though to acknowledge it intirely and constantly it must not be expected In the next place he passeth to the inforcement of my argument from what we read concerning Christ himself that he was more intense in prayer at one time then another when yet the lower degree was sure no sin and prepares to make answer to it viz. that Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law required but men fall short many degrees of what is required But sure this answer is nothing to the matter now in hand for the evidencing of which that example of Christ was brought by me viz. that sincere love is capable of degrees This was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one act of prayer then in another wherein what is affirmed of Christ is common to Angels and men and so still may be though he differ from them in other things to wit that he is perfect and never sins though men be imperfect and faulty the best of them For still it must be remembred that it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but sincerity of this or that virtue exprest in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that act for it is certain that I may in an act of mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little so to this his answer belongs not at all
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
before that edict of Iustinus at which time saith the Historian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were called Christians of all ages assembled in the Church to celebrate the nativity And to that it seems he hath no other return but his advertisement that Nicephorus saith it was Maximinus that was thus bloody Maximianus I suppose he would have said who reigned with Diocletian and then it comes to the same passe and the truth is acknowledged which soever the name were So against resolving the day of this festival to be Decemb. 25. his proofs are extraordinary 1. from the Doctor himself that it was called Midwinter day which is a fortnight before But that hath already been answered the variation being evidenced to be from the want of exactnesse in our Calendars not from any doubt of the day 2dly From the opinion of many Divines that our Lord died when he was 33 and halfyears of age or neer unto 34 as saith he the Doctor saith Qu. 1. § 10. What Divines these are that thus calculate I am not told nor how competent they are to be confronted to the censual Tables from whence S. Chrysostome fetches the day of his birth But the luck of it is that citation from the Doctor was easily consulted and on view of the place there is no more but this that Christ preacht the will of his Father three years or foure together which I thought had signified no more then for some uncertain space betwixt 3 or 4 yeears And if he were born in December and died in April what difficulty is there in this calculation or what needed the Diatribist to have cited from the Doctor the words neer 34. when he knowes there is nothing to that sense said by him The 3d thing without which his undertaking to mention many will be a faileur which may make us doubt of the truth of the calculation is the yonger date of the Arabick Codex of the Councels But when that Codex was dated he hath not told us And if it were later then I thought it may yet possibly speak truth and so that will give us no reason of doubting His last proof is that the Doctor is upon Ifs and T is probable And I heartily wish the Diatribist would but speak probably and till he doth so that he would not have such aversions to the Doctors Ifs I mean that he would use diffidence when he pretends not to demonstrate I adde nothing to his returns about the Epiphany but leave them to be judged by the §§ to which they are opposed And for the large view of the place in Chrysostome and his dispute against that Father my answer is very brief that all that I attempted to prove from Chrysostome was the due timing of the feast on the 25th of December and that being done beyond controversie I pretend not to derive other decisions from that testimonie but leave them to stand on their own basis Only when from some words of Chrysostome he at length concludes the authority of the Church in constituting and celebrating this festival in all ages much shaken I must reminde him that that Fathers words which affirm it a question at that time belong not to the Festivity it self but only to the particularity of the day whether it were to be kept on the 25th of December or on some other day and accordingly his proofs proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this is the very time And though some doubted whether this were a new or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient day of the festivity yet saith he others defended it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was old antient or original so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and is all one with Tertullians quod ab initio as that with quod ab Apostolis and from these ancient if not these first timas as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly imports and so again in Tertullian ordo ad originem recensus it hath been manifest and illustrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira from East to West that sure with him signifies all the world over And so still this dispute which side soever was in the right is founded in a supposition of the feast it self being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original and from the beginning And indeed if the first proof which he offers for it be considered t is not imaginable how he should say more to the asserting of the Apostolicalnesse both of the Festivity and the day also That this is the season saith he on which Christ was born the first demonstration is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the feast was so speedily promulgate every where ascended to so great an height flourisht adding that as Gamaliel said of the preaching of the Gospel that if it were of men it would come to nought but if of God ye cannot dissolve it lest ye be found fighters against God the same he might say confidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this day not of the Gospel as the Diatribist afterward saith he thinks he means but cannot really do so in this place against such expresse words that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing or because it is from God therefore t is not only not dissolved but every year advances and becomes more splendid and yet farther adding in the words recited by the Diatribist and by omitting the former rendred capable of being misunderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the preaching of it certainly i. e. of the day or else it can have no coherence with the feast or antecedents and whole contexture in a few years took possession of the whole world though tentmakers and fishermen unlearned and idiots brought it amongst them How farre this is now from doing prejudice to the Vniversal observation of this day in the Apostles times I leave the Reader and if he please the Diatribist also to consider Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion Strictures on some passages in it WHat now remains is by way of reply to my conclusion that the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivals of the universal Church must be lookt on as an act of affected departure from the universal Church of Christ in all ages and not only from the reformed Church of England This saith he is an heavy charge if it can be proved And for that I must now referre my self to the premisses in that treatise and in this defence nor indeed can it be reasonable that I descend to any other way of probation or vindication till this which I have used be invalidated For a conclusion being as this is deduced from the premisses what more can be required to establish the conclusion then the confirmation of the premisses And therefore as it is against all laws of Discourse for the Diatribist to confute or deny or make answer to the conclusion any