whether if a Christian had observed some Jewish ceremony which did not foreshew Christ to come but significant only of something past though they had not taught it necessary the Apostle would not have blamed them for that as superstitious and so for any new rites and ceremonies To which I answer considently and to the latter first that he would not and the very asking or questioning it in that form as if it could not be denied but the Apostle would have blamed them is the known fallacy of begging the question For the whole matter of controversy betwixt me and the Diatribist is this whether every devised rite or ceremony not commanded by God be superstitious And to the former part of the question I answer as confidently and ask him first what he thinks of the abstinence from things strangled and all eating of bloud was not that a Jewish ceremony and was not that observed by Christians Act. 15. and did the Apostles blame it as superstitious Certainly they did not Nay did not this observance continue among Christians for many ages Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis habemus suffocatis morticinis abstinemus we have not the bloud of any living creatures in our feasts we abstain from things strangled and that die of themselves saith Tertullian Apol. c. 9. And Lucian tells us how his Peregrinus was rejected by the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for eating some of their forbidden meats which sure belongs to this matter and in Eusebius's history l. 5. c. 1. Biblis thus vindicates the Christians from the accusation of eating of children because saith she 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we count it not lawful to eat the bloud of unreasonable creatures If this be not perfectly home to his question I shall then proceed and alledge for my instance the known practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who as they celebrated the weekly Lords day on the first of the week in commemoration of Christs resurrection so they continued the observation of the Saterday Sabbath on the last day of the week in remembrance of the Creation of the World The custome appears in Tertullian de Monogam and was continued to the time of the Laodicean Councel which orders that not only the Law as Act. 15. 21. but the Gospel also should be read that day And the words of Balsamon are clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sabbaths were by the holy Fathers almost quite equalled to the Lords days and a great deal more to the same purpose as is elsewhere shewed in the Exposition of the fourth Commandment 4thly When § 32. he so reports my words as to conclude me to affirm that if ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholesome there cannot be too much of them This is a plain changing of sense into that which is most contrary to it For my words are plain without his glosse that if they be positively wholsom or tending to edification not contenting my self with negatively wholesom or harmlesse or with any thing lesse then positive wholsomnesse then there will be little reason to accuse them of excesse then they will rather help devotion then incumber it the fear of which was the main objection against the multitude of them 5thly When § 35. he pretends to prove all folly and vanity in the worship of God to be superstition by demanding what Superstition is but folly and vanity this is a meer paralogisme never reducible into a Logical mood and figure by supposing things to be convertible which are not as if I should prove a particular substance for example the soul of man to be a body because every body is a substance The answer would be easie by saying every body is a substance but every substance is not a body so in like manner every superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the worship of God is not superstition This was a little too grosse a Sophisme to impose it self upon the Diatribist and he now sees a small measure of subtility was sufficient to enable me for the discovering of it 6 xtly When § 34. on occasion of my speaking of that one kinde of excesse of placing more virtue in some things then belongs to them he demands what I mean by or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church and whether the purer ages of the Church after the Apostles had power to put virtue into things which they had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word I answer that I never thought of any such thing that my meaning is plain enough if he would please to see it in the end of § 45. viz. that the thing there mentioned the signe of the Crosse and the parva Evangelia and the like had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church that force or virtue in them which in the latter impurer ages they were thought to have and I wonder what difficulty there was in understanding or fault in affirming this which hath no more dangerous intimation then that the opinion or estimation of the purest ages of the Church i. e. the first and neerest to the Apostles times were in any such controversie as this very fit to be considered in their due place i. e. next after the Apostles themselves 7thly When § 30. concerning holynesse or separation to holy from common uses he promises to speak somewhat considerable and under that head tells us that there is this difference between times and places separated by God and those which are separated by men that the former require holy duties to till them up i. e. that the duties are appointed for the time or places sake but the latter are to wait upon holy duties the time or place are appointed for the duties sake I must still challenge his promise whereby he is yet our debtor of somewhat considerable For certainly prayer and fasting and sacrifices among the Jews all duties appointed by God as in stead of the last the offertorie or almes among Christians were not appointed for time or places sake holy days and holy places the weekly Sabbath and the annual day of Expiation and the tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem were never the end for which prayer c were instituted nor is it imaginable how they should when each of those duties visibly prayer and sacrifice were appointed and practised before there was any such thing as Tabernacle or Temple instituted by God Again the time or place when instituted by God himself is as truly a circumstance of worship as when instituted by man and duty is equally the substance and it can with no probability be affirmed that the substance is appointed for the circumstances sake or as he is pleased to speak to till up the circumstances any otherwise then he would say substances were created to till up accidents the body for the colors sake As
Levitical no longer to continue then the Jewish priesthood of the Tribe of Levi continued and so is long since abolished by Christ and accordingly I never meant and I hope he cannot think I meant to conclude that the same kinds of freewill offerings which were acceptable then that of slaying a Bullock or a Ramme c. do now continue acceptable among Christians 2dly Then the onely question must be of the spontaneousness of the oblations whether that being confestly lawfull and acceptable under the Law it be now unlawfull under Christ or in plain termes whether Gods acceptance of uncommanded oblations when the matter of them is confest to be such as is acceptable to him be to be deemed Levitical and such as being peculiar to the Mosaical oeconomie is not now to be lookt for being abolished under Christ The question thus plainly set his affirmation is too far from the the least shew of probability and so utterly distitute of all proofs either from reason or Scripture as far as he hath here discovered himself and so but a begging of the question in him that thus affirmes that there is no need of my pains in disproving it Yet shall I offer a few considerations to this purpose and the first such as may be of force adhominem to this Diatribist And it shall be the reminding him of his three speciall proofs which he hath brought in his Preface and in his Diatribe to infer the sinfulness of Will-worship viz. the 2d Commandment the summe of which is as he oft saith Gods prescribed worship and all devised worship an excess and so sin against it The words of Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited And to the particular of Festivals the 4th Commandment against which saith he it is an offence in the excesse to observe any other holy day but that one of the Weekly Sabbath Now of these three it is plain that they are all taken out of the words of the Judaical Law and consequently if they were fitly urged to Christians then must it needs follow 1. That they were thus of force against all uncommanded services in the Old Testament and 2. That by way of analogie they still hold under the New Testament which if they do then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribist's present pretensions to his allowing unprescribed uncommanded worship under the Old Testament for how can that be when his proofs against uncommanded worship are all fetcht from the Old Testament to the abolishing in the New Testament what was allowed in the Old for if so how can the analogie hold betwixt the Old and the New in which his three proofs were founded as to the application of them to Christians Which being so the great evidences on which he had founded his hypothesis proving so irreconcileable with his present pretension I shall still give him his choice which part of his method he will adhere to the former or the latter The former he cannot the force of those places in the Mosaical Law for it is manifest by the free-will offerings and now confest by the Diatribists that uncommanded worships were allowed and so lawfull among the Jews And the latter he cannot having formerly supposed in his arguing that the analogie holds in this matter between the two Testaments So that I may now forme a Syllogisme the premises whereof shall be both fetcht out of the Diatribist the Minor from his very words the Major from that on which his arguments are founded thus Whatsoever was lawfull under the Old Testament is lawfull under the New But freewill or uncommanded offerings were lawfull under the Old Testament and then having given me me my premises t will be great unkindness to deny my conclusion therefore uncommanded offerings are lawfull under the New Testament Quod erat demonstrandum A 2d argument against his affirmation shall be the consideration of the liberty and advantages which result to Christians from the abolition of the Mosaical Law That liberty must consist in the taking off not in the imposing of weights and interdicts whereas by this Diatribists affirmation there shall by this abolition of what was Levitical i. e. by this libert y come in a multitude of unprofitable burthens which never lay upon the Jews Whensoever I shall do any thing in the service of God which I am not particularly commanded to do I am presently ensnared guilty of an abominable sin whereas a Jew might by his confession bring a thousand free-will offerings and in each of them be accepted This sure must be directly against one main part of the design of Christ's coming and therefore is not to be admitted in the 2d place 3dly It is sufficiently known and by the Apostle affirmed that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 positive ordinances and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph 2. 15. A Law of Commandments in ordinances which Christ did by his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cancell and naile to the Cross and indeed nothing else is capable of abolition or cancelling But this of the free-will offerings among the Jews is not any Law or Commandments or Ordinances but rather a negation of all those for such is a bare allowance to be deemed and therefore sure this as to the voluntariness of them was none of the things which were abolished by Christ 4thly If it were true which is here said by the Diatribist that the Leviticalness or Ceremoniality of the offerings seems to ly here viz. in the uncommandedness or freedome to offer or not to offer wherein he truly saith that the formality of a freewill offering consists as that is contradistinguished to the commanded offerings then sure the Leviticalness c. would not extend to the commandedness of the other offerings and consequently the commanded offerings under the Law would not be Levitical Which as it is palpably false and contrary to plain Scripture Heb. 9. 1. 20. and elsewhere frequently so it will farther conclude also that the commanded offerings are still in force for by the Leviticalness and Ceremoniality saith he it was that those other are supposed to be now abolished 5 tly Against his conclusion I thus argue Whatsoever was lawfull before the Mosaical Law to mankind and remained lawfull under the Mosaical Law and is not now prohibited by Christ or his Apostles under the Gospell that certainly is now perfectly lawfull and free to Christians But such are freewill offerings Ergo. Of the Major I suppose there will be no doubt And the Minor consisting of three branches is manifest in the first of them among many others by Abel's oblation which the Fathers generally observe not to have been by way of precept from God and t is affirmed by the antient Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pseudo-Clement c. 22. I say not how truly that before the Jews idolatries and high provocations sacrifices themselves were not imposed on or commanded the Jewes but onely left to their free
them The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmass day Objections against the 25. of December answered The controversie in Chrysostome about the day not the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His words full for the Apostolicalness of both 289 Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion Strictures on some passages in it 292 AN ACCOUNT OF THE 3 ex DIATRIBE CONCERNING Superstition Wil-worship and Christmas Festivall CHAP. I. Of Mr C. his Title Pages Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endlesse Genealogies 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9. The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse AND first the Title page will deserve a cursory view especially the place of Scripture wherewith he hath chosen to adorn it Col. 2. 4. 8. by which the Reader is directed to look on his threefold exercitation as he is pleased to call it with Dr. H. as an especiall antidote against that Philosophy c. of which S. Paul forewarns men to take heed in those two verses On this occasion I shall not need inquire what provocation Mr. C. had to express such unkindness to and jealousie of Philosophy certainly not the same that S. Paul then had among his Colossians but onely remind the Reader what is elsewhere shew'd more largely that the Philosophy there branded by the Apostle was that which the Gnosticks divinity was too full of taken out of Pythagoras and the Greek Poets Antiphanes Hesiod and Philistion and especially Orpheus his Theologie or Genealogies of the Gods and so promiscuously styled by the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philosophy and vain deceipt in this admonition to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fables and endless genealogies how out of Night and Silence comes forth Chaos c. in his directions to Timothy 1 Tim. 1. 4. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolish questions and genealogies in his Epistles to Titus c. 3. 9. And then how conveniently this was accommodated to any or all those three discourses concerning Superstition Wil-worship Christmas Festival must be discerned by his answer to all or any of these few questions 1. Whether any Gnostick principle of Theologie hath been discovered in any of those three Tracts which he hath undertaken to chastise 2. Whether it be a piece of Apostatical or heretical pravity a branch of heathenisme or Gnosticisme to maintain the celebration of Christs Nativity to have nothing criminous in it either under the head of Superstition or Wil-worship 3. Whether all institutions of the Church though in themselves never so blameless are yet to be lookt on as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acts of dispoiling Christians and little less then Sacrileges and whether they are all comprehended under that style of Traditions of men and rudiments of the world in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Christ of which the Apostle so carefully warnes the Colossians Lastly whether all probable or concludent nay even demonstrative discourse be to be warded and averted as deceipts and beguilings because capable of that title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle there useth whether we render them literally probabilities of speech or with our translation inticing words When M. C. hath accommodated any satisfactory answer to these few questions all or at least some one of them he may then be qualified to attempt justifying the charitableness of his title page and the propriety of his select Scripture but till then he may give his Reader leave to question one of them Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8 9. Gal. 4. 9 10. Deum sic colere quomodo seipsum colendum praecepit Christmas no irrational custome THe same reason I have to put in my exceptions to the title pages of his two other exercitations and in like manner 1. to demand how commodiously the words of Christ Mat. 15. 8 9. condemning their worship as vain which teach for doctrines the commandments of men are affixt to the second Diatribe concerning Wil-worship when he cannot but know that that Text is particularly handled in the first leaf of the treatise of Wil-worship and demonstrated neither to belong to humane laws in general nor to any institutions of the Christian Church but onely to the dogmatizing of Pharisaical hereticks and particularly their urging some inventions of their own as commanded and under obligation by divine precept now when the very Judaical commanded rites were so suddenly to be laid aside nailed to the crosse solemnly cancelled and abolisht by Christ And 2. no farther to demand his reasons but to admire his constancy to himself that before the Diatribe of Christmas and other sure Christian festivals he hath thought meet to prefix that text Gal. 4. 9 10. of observing dayes moneths times years so peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Sabbaths New Moons Anniversaries and Jubiles but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of his Resurrection To which we shall associate his two Latine sentences the one out of S. Austine of worshipping God as he hath commanded the other out of S. Cyprian of the vanity of irrational customes and remind him that we design no other worship of God upon Christmas day but such as we are sure he hath commanded at all times that of prayer and thanksgiving c. and that the incarnation of Christ was a competent reason to found a custome of commemorating it after this manner we shall finde a perfect harmony and consent in all his discords and that is all I shall return to his frontispices designed to infuse prejudices into the Reader to blast before-hand what he meant to answer CHAP. II. Of M. C. his Preface Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes Comparing of Superstition and Wil-worship to Heresie Accounting Superstition our virtue T Is now more then time that we think of entring and yet there is a Preface still behind which expects to be taken notice of as being a very friendly recapitulation of the grounds of my great mistakes the unhappy causes of those my miscarriages which he hath discovered in the insuing Exercitations But I that am not yet by all his Diatribe so instructed or improved as to discern one real misadventure in those discourses find it impossible for me to be edified by this his charity I must be shewed my disease before Hippocrates himself can point me out the causes of it and therefore my briefest return to his preface is but to beseech him to reserve his discourse of causes till the effects shall be so visible as to call for it and if this be not a sufficient reply to all of it What is behind will easily be referred to this one head the injustices and mistakes of the author of it which I shall but briefely recite to him First that he hath thought fit to compare Superstition and Wil-worship as they are the subjects of my discourses with Heresie whereas 1. Superstition in the proper notation
oathes the negative and affirmative parts of it and then with what propriety can that be said to denote the right manner of the worship with all due reverence Or if it should be extensible so far then sure all ceremonies that may express that reverence though not elsewhere prescribed will be here commanded and then sure not forbidden in the 2d Commandment Lastly for the right time God's own appointed day the Sabbath I suppose he means though that be appointed in the 4th Commandment yet sure not so as to prohibite all others we know there was a yearly Sabbatick fast the great day of expiation so called Isa 58. 13. and many other feasts beside that of the weekly rest in the 4th Commandment some of Gods own institution others as the feast of dedication of the Altar in memory of the purging by Judas Maccabaeus instituted by the Jewes themselves and never mentioned in the Canon of the old Testament and so the fasts of the fift and seventh moneth Zac. 7. 5. And under the new Testament the first day of the week that certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed and why the Apostles that instituted that proportionably to the weekly Sabbath should not either they or their successors institute other days festival or fasting proportionable to the like among the Jewes sure there is no manner of prohibition in the 4th Commandment which commanding one day to be hallowed and allowing the rest for their ordinary labour doth not yet interdict all others or bind his own or his peoples and all Christians hands from prescribing or setting a part any other And there being so little solidity in the grounds how can it be expected there should be any in the conclusion as he saith answerably erected on them that Superstition may extend to the whole first Table or that every excess which he will phansie reducible to any of these shall straightway commence Superstition That he may farther perswade this one observation he commends to us fundamental to this discovery but such as I think never slipt from any man before him His words are these The Commandments of God having every of them a negative and affirmative part expressed or understood the duties of Religion do stand in the midst as virtues between two extremes Here I shall not question the corner stone of this foundation else I might demand what is the affirmative part of the 2d Commandment or how can it be evidenced that there is any or indeed any more then a prohibition of idol-worship appendant to the no other Gods in the first Commandment which still is but a negative or an interdict or if an affirmative be to be understood must it not be bowing down to the true God and so that will not prejudge but justifie all outward decent gestures of adoration assist not oppugne our pretentions But in stead of this nicer inquirie and supposing with him that every of the Commandments hath its negative and affirmative part I onely demand how he could think that the duties of Religion stand in the midst what I pray is the antecedent to which in the midst relates there is no other in the period but an affirmative and negative part of each Commandment But do the duties of Religion stand in the midst of the affirmative and the negative part of each Commandment as virtues between two extremes Then sure the affirmative part of the command is one extreme and the negative is the other then what is commanded in the affirmative part to that which is under precept is an extreme and so a vice as far removed from virtue as that which is forbidden in the negative the worship of one God a vice as well as the worshipping of many paying to God our oathes a vice as well as perjurie perfect chastity a vice as well as the most prostitute adultery and so in the rest of them what could have been said more unluckily then this I would fain believe that the Diatribist did not mean thus and therefore would attempt to affixe some other possible meaning to his words as thus without any retrospect toward the former part of the period that the duties of Religion stand in the midst between two extremes as virtues stand in the midst between two extremes But then to what purpose was the ment on of the two parts affirmative and negative of the Commandments premised for this I am still to seek and therefore must misdoubt my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is not so fit for the malady as I could have wisht and yet I have no better to succeed it The best of it is he hath not pursued this observation nor made this Superstructure in his exemplification thereof the grosseness of it would not permit that But then to what purpose was his observation sure but to amuse the reader and say somewhat demurely which should pretend to be a ground of his beloved conclusions that all additions to the rule of worship are excess against the 2d Commandment additions of ridiculous ceremonies or gestures an excess against the 3d men's instituting other holy days and times an excess against the 4th And truly what else he please with as much appearance of truth or solidity of argument as these are inferred from either the letter of those Commandments or from the solemne observation concerning the affirmative and negative parts of them and the duties of Religion in the midst T is true all worshipping of Idols is forbidden in the 2d Commandment but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols All perjury and by Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntarie swearing at all is forbidden in the 3d Commandment but how come rites and ceremonies and gestures though never so ridiculous to be either oaths or perjuries or to bear any analogie with or by that means to be reducible to them In the 4th Commandment the not observing Gods designed Sabbath was a defect but what words of that Commandment conclude against instituting other holy days and times as an excess and that criminous not admittable among Christians If any it must be six days shalt thou labour but sure that is not the meaning of them but the explication is to be fetcht from the other part of the period and do all that thou hast to do i. e. all thy labour and all that thou hast to do shall be finisht as God's was in six days and no other day must be so set apart as to take off from the seventh dayes rest or Sabbath but for such celebrations as are reconcileable with that there is no word nor appearance to the prejudging of them But the unlawfulness of this last is confirmed by the sinfulness of Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. He ordained a feast like unto the feast that was in Judaea But the Diatribist cannot but know what it was that made that criminous in Jeroboam his appointing this feast to be kept with sacrifices at Bethel which beside the
Diatribist it is most evident that Religion and Superstition were by them who were guilty of daemon worship or when used of them by others taken as exactly Synonyma words importing the same thing But against this the Diatribist conceives himself out of these very Sections to have gained somewhat to object It seems saith he the heathens did oft take the word in an ill sense and branded Religions which they did not like by that name Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superstition in two things remarkable 1. That when invaded they would not rise from their seats on the Sabbath day which was excess against the 4th Commandment and gross Superstition 2. Their killing and sacrificing their children to Moloch which being an horrid Superstition was as the former intended as a worship to the true God and yet was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. which though in other respects it was against the first Commandment gross Idolatry so in making it a worship of the true God when he commanded it not neither came it into his heart as somewhere he sayes it was a kind of Superstition against the 2d Commandment concluding in a word that the Etymologist speaks fully his sense the word among the heathen is taken for a good thing but among Christians for impiety How solid this way of objecting is will now soon be discerned 1. By remembring in the general that at the beginning of the § the testimonies brought by me in those Sections were judged to be to little purpose but to cloud the business and lead men away in a mist and yet now he can express kindness to some of the testimonies as thinking they may be usefull to his pretensions which assures me all the other might have been capable of the like favour and friendly reception from him if they could any way have been perswaded to do him service 2dly To the heathens taking the word in an ill sense the answer is most obvious so they did Religion too and indifferently either when either they that spake were Epicureans enemies to all Religion or when the Religions they spake of were disliked by them and so sure that proves nothing for the Diatribist 3dly This is the answer also to what is observed from Plutarch for he speaks of the religions which he disliked the Jewish was one of them and particularly their observation of Sabbatick rests to the ruining their City which he thought their Religion had bound them to and never dreamt that they had mistaken their Religion or that their 4th Commandment allowed them greater liberty 4thly That Plutarch mentions the killing and sacrificing of children he took that also for a part of some mens Religion and thought he had reason to be dissatisfied with it and to make it an instance of the Quantum Religio potuit how much evil Religion did in the world still making no distinction betwixt Religion and Superstition But here by the way the Diatribist hath a little mistaken in thinking that this bloody worship in sacrificing their children to Moloch was as the former i. e. as that of the strict Judaical rest in time of invasion intended as a worship to the true God Certainly Moloch was no true God but a false the abomination of the children of Ammon 1 Kin. 11. 7. and 2 Kin. 23. 13. thought by learned men to be a deified King of the Aegyptians and so a daemon placed among the starres the same that others make the planet Mars see Kircheri Prodromus Coptic 1. 5. and that sacrifice was the giving their seed to Moloch that false God Lev. 20. 2 3 4. or the making their sonnes and daughters pass through the fire to Moloch Jer. 32. 45. and so no way intended to the true God And whereas he saith this was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. t is strange he should not see or acknowledge that it was a downright sacrificing to Moloch a Daemon and not as to the true God but then he could have had no pretense to make it an act of uncommanded worship and so such a kind of Superstition as is chargeable on our Christmas Festival and then he had lost all the advantage which this instance was to bring in to him Toward this he thought to reap some benefit by that text of Scripture He commanded it not neither came it into his heart as he somewhere sayes But why did he not tell us where God saith this If his memory had failed his Concordance would soon have helpt him to set down the place But it was not for his turn it should be examined The place is Jer. 32. 35. and again Jer. 7. 31. and truely belongs to these sacrifices to Moloch but then God's not commanding c. signifies not onely uncommanded worship but by the figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinary in the Scripture worship directly forbidden under threat of excision Lev. 20. 2. Whosoever he be that giveth any of his seed to Moloch he shall surely be put to death the people of the land shall stone him with stones and I will set my face against him and cut him off from among his people v. 3. And if the people of the land do any way hide their eyes from the man when he giveth of his seed to Moloch and kill him not then will I set my face against that man and family and will cut him off and all that go a whoring after him v. 4. and accordingly we see it in the Execution Jer. 7. 31 32. The valley of Tophet where they burnt their sonnes and daughters in the fire shall be called the vally of slaughter for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place And sure this was not the manner of proceeding against those that observed any feast or sacrifice to the true God which was not commanded or prescribed by God they that kept the Encaenia were not thus judged and therefore this was very little to the Diatribist's advantage as now appears by examining the place it is pity Mr. C. would not consider it Lastly For the words in the Etymologist which he saith are fully his sense t is again a mistake they are directly the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It must be known that the word Superstition is among the Graecians or Gentiles taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a good thing but among us Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for impiety i. e. evidently the heathens and the Christians use it for the same thing the worship of daemons but that the Gentiles commend and account good who use it but we Christians justly deem it the greatest impiety Agreeable hereto again is that of Phavorinus a Christian also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstition is the worshipping all things even those which ' are not to be worshipt and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is dubious concerning faith as the Israelites betwixt God and
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
his 24 Chapter gives us the full debate of it in the Epistle of Polycrates to Victor This Polycrates was the eighth Bishop of Ephesus and was then 65 years old which reacheth up very high within 30 years of S. Johns time and he set down and manifested the tradition to be Apostolical expressely deducing it from two of the Apostles Philip one of the twelve which saith he died at Hierapolis and John the beloved disciple of Christ who lived and died at Ephesus adding to these Polycarp Bishop and Martyr of Smyrna and Thraseas Bishop and Martyr of Eumenia Sagaris of Laodicea Papyrius and Melito of Sardis All which saith he observed the fourteenth day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keeping exactly the Canon of faith and no way varying from it Here it is undeniably evident that the Asiatick custome was by Polycrates and all the Bishops of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consented to this Epistle of his fetcht from two of the twelve Apostles S. Philip and S. John And if that which our stories tell us of Philips being in France and sending Joseph of Arimathea and others into Britain be to be understood of Philip the Apostle as Gildas Albanicus expressely affirmes then have we a clear account of the derivation of this custome of keeping Easter in this Nation from Philip to our first Christians just as Polycrates in Asia deduces it from the same Philip. And that affords us an irrefragable instance of the observation of Christian festivals among us not only from the first plantation of Christianity among us but even from the practice of the very Apostles themselves which was the utmost that I could pretend to in this matter 8. And it is farther observable that Pope Victor of Rome though he was willing to have proceeded with greater rigor against the Asiaticks even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cut off or excommunicate all the Provinces and Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as heterodox yet never questions the truth of Polycrates's affirmations concerning his receiving the custome from those Apostles And indeed the other Bishops assembled were not for such severity but for peace and unity and charity with these fellow Christians and reprehended Victor severely for his thoughts of severity And the Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor is very considerable to this purpose who though he resolved on Victors conclusion for the keeping it on the Lords day only yet he is absolutely against excommunicating the Asiaticks upon this very ground that these Churches of God did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe the tradition of ancient or original custome and he farther tells him that the Bishops before him had never broken peace with any on occasion of this difference instancing in Polycarp who came to Rome in Anicetus's time and as Anicetus could not perswade him to leave his custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having observed it alwaies according to the practice of John the disciple of the Lord and the rest of the Apostles with whom he had conversed So neither could Polycarp perswade Anicetus to leave his way and yet they communicated one with another Here again by Irenaeus his own confession who was for the Western custome the Eastern was practised by John and the rest of the Apostles sure more then one with whom Polycarp had conversed Lastly There is no doubt all this while of that which the Western pretended for their custome that they had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Apostolical tradition saith Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning saith Nicephorus and that expressely from S. Peter the Apostle which still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian festival and all others are to be rated by that standard was observed and celebrated by the Apostles and so is the evincing of all that I need to pretend to for the vindicating of that Resolution of the Quaere concerning the Festivals of the Church What now can be invented by way of reply to this argument thus inforced I profess not to be able to foresee what he hath thought fit to offer for the proof of the contrary I shall now very briefly consider And 1. saith he there is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor any ground to found it on But to this 1. It is sufficient to answer that there is small virtue in this argument from Scripture negative 2dly That the Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast which by circumstances is applied to the feast of Easter is some be it acknowledged a lesse weighty ground in Scripture for the observation 3dly That the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. is some farther ground whether that signifie the weekly or annual Lords day If it be the annual there is then a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days and if it should be the weekly yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day which we know is to commemorate the resurrection as it is evident that the weekly friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week 4thly If the Scripture should give us no kinde of mention of this yet seeing it hath otherwise appeared from the most ancient and undoubted records of the Church that Easter was observed by the Apostles by Peter and Paul in one manner by John and Philip in another what place of doubt or question can there be in this matter What he addes in the close of his first reason that the Apostles were so farre from instituting these as Christian feasts that they do expressely repeal them and cry them down hath not the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4. 10. His 2d proof is from Socrates the Historian saying that the Apostles were not solicitous to appoint any festival days at all therefore not this of Easter To this I answer that Socrates's words do not at all deny this to have been the practice of the Apostles only his conceit is that neither Christ nor his Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded to observe this by any law and again that they intended not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make laws of festival days referring the original of them to custome which varied in several regions as appeared to him by that difference betwixt the Asiatick and Western Christians from whence his conclusion or as in the same matter he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his conjecture was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feast of Easter among all sorts of people had a peculiar different observation from some custome because none of the Apostles had made any
a last remedy and so not proceeded to till the disease were universally spreading and obstinate against all cure for whilest it were lower then so it was still but the season of reformation From whence that the Diatribist should think fit to infer it my sense that he might accuse me that lesse or lesse generall abuses need no reformation there can be no tolerable account rendred but only this that his ears have been so accustomed to the new dialect that of exterminative reformations that he cannot think the word signifies any thing else by whomsoever it is used but that which indeed it never signifies in any propriety of speech extirpation and abolition In a word I think there is no necessity of excision till the part begin to gangrene or corrupt and spread yet I can admit of medicines long before and heartily advise timely prudent applications as soon as ever the patient begins in the least measure to be distempered His 23th § is the accusing of those that used cards on the Lords day after the evening service and the upbraiding their superstition that they will not touch cards or dice on Christmas day and the answer is sufficient that as I spake not a word of them that did thus so I never heard of any that thus made a difference betwixt Christmasse day and the Lords day but that if they used that liberty on the later they used it on the former too However if by the Diatribist it were deemed criminous in the one I should have hoped he might have been gratified by hearing it was abstained from in the other For my own part I never allowed my self the liberty on either and know not that I ever saw it used and therefore I am sure there is nothing farther to be replied to by me in that § I as heartily with a devout conscientious profitable observation of the Lords day as of any other Festivity and cannot justly fall under the Diatribists censure for any thing I have so much as intimated in this matter And this I say the rather because § 24. this is charged upon my doctrine as a crime and a part of superstition that the day hath been accounted more sacred then the Lords day and the proof brought out of my 20th § where saith he I call it most sacred and out of my 24th § where I say it hath been kept if not much more yet certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year But here is misprision in each of these The phrase most sacred § 20. doth not at all belong to the day much lesse to the preferring it before the Lords day in respect of sacrednesse but only to a Christian Festivity as that is made up of prayer praises Eucharist charity hospitality c All which being put together I hope I could not offend in styling it most sacred such as the extravagant irrational riots of men ought not to assault and pollute And for the 2d there is no such word as sacred to be found in that 24th § all that is said is that in this nation the day of the birth of Christ hath been kept if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year and this interpreted most clearly by the following words in frequenting the services of the Church in the use of the Liturgie Sermon Sncraments c. And I cannot imagine how this manner of strict observing of it can be criminous in it self or to the prejudice of the Lords day on which t is no news to say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which I make an ingredient in the strictnesse of the celebration and that which denominates it more strict is not constantly celebrated and yet sure no fault that it is constantly celebrated on Christmas day However the strictnesse of observing is one thing and the sacrednesse is another Any private fast may be more strictly observed more or more severe strictnesse of duty allotted to it then to the Lords day and yet the Lords day as set apart by the Apostles of Christ in respect of that institution and of the resurrection of Christ to the commemorating whereof it was consecrated be esteemed and lookt on as most sacred I need to say no more of that As for the ground which he pretends from his own knowledge to assigne of my thus speaking viz. that we may make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority viz. of the Church this he must very much dissemble his knowledge if he confesse not to be a mistake also For in the margent he grants that I say that the Apostles instituted the Lords day § 31. and so certainly I do though I know not in what words of Scripture that institution is set down But saith he there be other words § 57. which speak of the Lords day by the same authority appointed To which I answer that the words there used though the Lords day be by the same authority appointed belong not at all to the stating of this question and being introduced in that form though c. they are not any affirmation that the Lords day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas day but only a concession of what was asked by the Quaerist without so much as examining or inquiring into the utmost of the authority by which it stood Of this I had sufficiently exprest my sense § 31. as the Diatribists margent confesses from me viz. that the Apostles instituted the Lords day whereas in that 57th § I speak as plainly of Christmas day that it hath its authority from the institution and usage of the Vniversal Church And if when the matter is so clear and my meaning so expresse both for the one and the other I must yet be accused for the contrary and this be affirmed from the Diatribists knowledge to be my ground viz. a designe to make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority and that by him specified viz. of the Church T is certainly most visible that either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be so taken as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles instituted the Lords day and either they personally or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals the Festival of Easter being derived undoubtedly from the Apostles Philip and John Peter and Paul as hath already clearly appeared out of the difference betwixt Victor and Polycrates And other Festivals by the passages of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp i. e. by evidence of story being demonstrated to be little later though of Christmasse this do not so expressely appear to me as to be any where affirmed by me But there is yet more of this captious discourse behinde upon my saying that t is not usual to touch
in him I will onely demand whether St Augustine be of any better account with him Haer. 53. he knew what heresie was and what Aërius was guilty of and whether elsewhere he may deserve to be believed when in consort with himself and with Epiphanius he saith Rectè festa Ecclesiae colunt qui se Ecclesiae filios recognoscunt they that profess themselves sons of the Church do duely observe the feasts of the Church setting this of the nativity in the front of such where surely those that do not observe them must disclaim their sonship and that is but a paraphrase to express those whom Epiphanius styles hereticks If he shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe feasts are superstitious I shall think my self obliged to do more then deny the accusation For the festivities of martyrs mentioned by me in the same § he acknowledges they began betimes as superstition saith he ever attends religion and devotion adding that though they were intended for good ends yet they produced in time much superstition But sure thi answer is very unsufficient and inconstant Vnsufficient for what if it were granted that in a processe of time these festivities did occasionally produce some evil so Christianity it self so all things that should have been most for our wealth may through the vices of men be perverted into occasions of falling But what is that to the antiquity of Festivals which is the only thing that these instances were required to testifie And 2dly inconstant for at first these festivities are lookt on as superstition attending religion and devotion and by the way if that be applicable to these festivities that will be a competent character of their antiquity for religion and devotion were brought in with Christianity and if the Festivities were the superstition that attended that they will be pretty ancient and yet in the latter part t is said of them that they produced in time much superstition which latter if it be true then the former which was contrary is not true and that is sufficient to be replied to that answer As for his return to § 33. which is of the same matter that I presume too much upon my own reason in concluding from the testimony of the Church of Smyrna that the days of the death of the Apostles themselves were solemnized thus early i. e. before Polycarps death Sure his censure is not over reasonable For when by those expresse words of that Churches Epistle it is first apparent that Polycarps death was thus celebrated 2. That this Polycarp was immediate successor to the Apostles and lived in the same time with them 3 That this commemoration of Martyrs was before this time used in the Church and no new thing now to be done to Polycarp what reason of doubting can there be but that at this time the Apostles having received many of them this crown of martyrdome should be thus commemorated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in joy and exultation i. e. with a festivity when this appears so expressely of Polycarp and that in accord to former practice especially when to that is added the instance perfectly parallel of Ignatius yet more ancient then Polycarp and the day of his death precisely observed by those that were present on this very purpose say they ut secundum tempus martyrii ejus congregati communicemus athletae that they might assemble at the day of his martyrdome and communicate with this champion That I produce not more or more express testimonies for the festivals of the Apostles need not seem strange the records being so few which remain of those times and my reading being so small For the present these two may be considered being testimonies of competent antiquity and force to prove what I pretend to prove that Festivities were observed by the Church next succeeding the Apostles and why Polycarp and Ignatius should have that honour when Peter and Paul were not allowed it I still professe not to discern reason nor consequently to make any doubt of it Mean while when the Diatribist is willing to form an argument from my not bringing of testimonies § 33. it is remarkeable that § 34. is wholly past over in silence by him which yet produceth the authorities of Gregorius Thaumaturgus of Cyprian of Tertullian ex majorum traditione and so of those that were much more ancient then he and so intirely made up of testimonies of the first antiquity concerning the memories of the Martyrs which must sure include the Apostles as many of them as were thus crowned before any Churches were built wherein to assemble and celebrate their Festivals This shewes that the Diatribist had little reason to complain of want at that very time when he was thus overcharged with plenty of testimonies and hath not a word to return to any one of them any more then he doth § 35. to the mentions of Origen Cyprian and Chrysostome deducing the Christmass festivity from the first antiquity 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 them The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmass day Objections against the 25th of December answered The controversie in Chrysostome about the day not the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His words full for the Apostolicalness of both WHat now followes § 35 is so far from having weight in it that I must not allot any solemn answers to it the lightest strictures will be more proportionable As when of my mention of the Author of the Constitutions he saith this will weaken my cause the more because they are generally accounted spurious This sure must be very unjust that what was confirmed so newly from Origen Cyprian and Chrysostome should not only not gain but lose strength by the addition of the Constitutions which besides that they are acknowledged ancient by all which least believe them Apostolical are known to be designed to imitate that antiquity they pretend to and are never justly rejected but when that which they affirm is found discordant to the affirmations of other writings of undoubted antiquity which having no place here there is as little room for the Diatribists censure So what he concludes from Justinus's edict which I mentioned that it was a proof that the Apostles did not institute it is already answered by saying that the Apostles practice being all that is pretended for the institution the edict of the Emperour for the Vniversal observation of it is very reconcileable with that and so also with the usage of the first ages after the Apostles in case it be divolved no higher then these as the several decrees of Magistrates Civil and Ecclesiastical for an universal observation of the Lords day are sure perfectly reconcileable with the Apostolical original thereof And this was there evidenced by the 20000 Christians that were burnt by Diocletian on this day sure long
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