the matter of any VVorship is then onely lawful and acceptable when it falls under a command that gives it the form and makes it true VVorship He equivocates with us in uncommanded oblations which may be either not at all commanded by God in their kindes and for such he will not plead for that is to introduce new worship or if commanded in the kinde yet not in the particular degree or circumstances and that will do him no good for that is not will-worship devised by men such as that will-worship he pleads for must be but as it is worship for kinde commanded so it may pro hic nunc as they speak be necessary which his will-worship cannot be Two things I shall adde to this number 1. That he calls his will-worship Oblations which were in the old Law parts of VVorship or proper VVorship which he will anon deny of his 2. That if spontaneousness of oblations alone will make them lawful and acceptable to God the Papists are as spontaneous and voluntary in their vowed Caelibate Poverty such and such Habits Fastings c. as the Doctor can be in his will-worship and so he must either justifie them upon that point or condemn himself with them And now I shall come to consider his arguments the first whereof is he sayes p. 176. n. 10 ad hominem Reminding me of my three Texts out of the old Testament the second Commandment Deut. 4.2 and the fourth Commandment 1. They were thus of force against all uncommanded services in the old Testament 2. by Analogie they still hold under the New which if they do then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribists pretensions c. His argument is thus summ'd up Whatsoever was lawful under the Old Testament p. 177. n. 12 is lawful under the New But Free-will or uncommanded offerings were lawful under the Old Testament ergo First his Major is none of mine and clearly false none of mine for I argued with learned Divines clean contrary The worship of God then was far different from the worship of the Gospel And as he sets it it is clearly false and he can never prove it That whatsoever worship for of that we speak was lawful then is lawful now Give me leave to make an assumption to it from himself n. 7. The kinde of that worship was Levitical and long since abolished by Christ yet was lawful then Secondly the former distinction of uncommanded worship will avoid his whole argument uncommanded for kinde or uncommanded for degree or circumstances In the first sense as I meant it the Texts by me alledged do directly militate in the Old and New Testament But then the Minor is false uncommanded offerings for kinde were not lawful under the old Testament if uncommanded be taken in the second sense uncommanded for degrees or frequency c. which are but circumstances of Worship commanded they were lawful then But this will not serve his turn who pleads for uncommanded will-devised Worship both for kindes and circumstances such are his Will-worships of Virginity c. not at all commanded by God but left indifferent as he confesses Now the argument may in my sense be retorted What ever worship was unlawful in the Old Testament is unlawful in the New But uncommanded offerings for kinde were unlawful then ergo so now Let him try his strength to answer this But there is one foul mistake n. 10. whether willingly or no I will not say In touching upon my argument from the fourth Commandment in the particular of Festivals he charges me to say It is an offence in the excess to observe any other Holy-day but that one of the weekly Sabbath My words are otherwise To make and observe other days as Holy as the weekly Sabbath as parts of Worship is an offence and excess against the fourth Commandment The same distinction as afore will cut the sinews of his next argument n. 13. taken from the liberty and advantages which result to Christians from the abolition of the Mosaical Law which consists in taking off not in imposing weights and interdicts whereas by this Diatribist affirmation a multitude of burthens come in when I shall do any thing in the service of God not particularly commanded I am presently ensnared c. First For the burthen it is still the same in matter of new kindes of uncommanded worship not when I shall do any thing in commanded Worship as he too generally speaks but when I shall adde any Worship not commanded then I am ensnared Secondly let it be observed what the Doctor says here That the liberty brought in by Christ must consist in taking off not in imposing weights and interdicts But hereafter we shall finde him asserting that Christ by perfecting the Moral Law and adding to it hath rather increased the burthen to Christians as we shall see in due place p. 218. n. 49. To the third argument little need be said more Free-will offerings were then lawful p. 177. n. 14 but not Will-worship or Worship not commanded And if Free-will-offerings then were not Will-worship neither is his Will-worship a Free-will-offering now they then are not parallel as was said and so no arguing from one to another As for the fourth argument n. 15. I did but say that it seemed to me as to others that the formality of a Free-will-offering consisted in the freedome to offer or not to offer c. which is true in this sense that the particular quantity and frequency of offering was left free and not commanded but not that the kinde of offering was left free But he talking of uncommanded Worship would have his Reader think that there was a liberty then to offer or not to offer uncommanded Worship which was a new kinde of Worship so to build the lawfulness of his Will worship uncommanded Worship upon that foundation The fifth argument is answered as the former 〈…〉 those Free-will offerings that were in all those periods lawful were no for kindes uncommanded worship which that the Doctor doth intend appears first by paralleling his Will-worship with those Free-will offerings which were parts of Worship and secondly by his instance of Abels oblation which certainly was real Worship and yet the Doctor would believe with some and but some Fathers not to have been by way of precept from God but left to Free-will c. to offer or not to offer this certainly was not a circumstance but a new kinde of Worship never heard of before and so unparallel either to the Free-will-offerings of old or his Will-worship now Bellarm. himself grants the Altars and so the Sacrifices of Abraham c. to be by inspiration and impulsion Divine De â—…ff Sacr. l. 2. c. 31. And however the Doctor inclines rather to those few that say it was not under precept yet most of our best Divines do think and say it was under some precept to Adam or Abel without which
sorts of worship even now partake equally of the nature of the genus Indeed in true construction of God false worship is no worship of him In vain do they worship me yet they worshipped though The Doctor may consider his Logick or Divinity here which he often jears me for hereafter But ex abundanti if the Doctor will understand the question not of Circumstances but of Ceremonies added to the worship of God and thereby say some made sorts or parts of worship I have I suppose proved that he with others does make some Ceremonies as Festivals c. not Circumstances but sorts and new kindes of worship the charge whereof he never goes about to remove It will be needless now to follow him in prosecuting his absurd inferences having removed the Antecedent whence they must proceed that I do not mean it of Circumstances unprescited but of uncommanded worship yet some things deserve to be taken notice of and some questions answered As 1. For prayer p. 12. n. 17. What hath the Rule of Scripture prescribed concerning the time of prayer as morning evening and that both positively and exclusively If so then by the standard of this Diatribist this Diatribist as this Publican Davids or Daniels praying three times a day must be criminous abominable c. and so he goes on with absurdities upon absurdities But whom do they fall upon but upon himself who knowes I mean it not of Circumstances but onely of uncommanded worship and yet goes on to scornful language enough If he cannot produce any such Scriture then is my Censor the guilty person the very Dogmatizer that teacheth for Doctrines or commandments of God his own Dictates and the doing so I cannot resist to be a Nimiety but not of Religion c. I will not recriminate let the Reader judge p. 13. n. 18. who deserves the name of Censor or Dictator in Religion most the Doctor or I. A second question is How many set dayes to be consecrated to the worship of God for Fasting or Prayer every week or year hath the rule of worship prescribed law or Gospel His answer to those will involve him in intricacies enough I answer clearly 1. For every week ordinarily but one day in seven extraordinary are left to Christian liberty and occasions 2. Both by Law and Gospel one day in a week By the Law in the fourth Commandment requiring one and but one in seven and by the Gospel designing onely one the Lords day as an holy day and a part of worship all other Jewish days being voided by the Gospel 3. By what words of the New Testament is the weekly observation of the Lords day commanded I answer for the number one in seven the fourth Commandment resolves it for the particular day the first Apostolical Institution which he hath oft confessed to be of Divine obligation 4. The observing of other dayes as Easter and Pentecost with the other Festivals if made parts of worship are expresly forbidden Gal. 4. If as Circumstances of worship onely they are besides the question And note this by the way that it 's no way probable the Apostle would cry down the Feast of the Passover and set up Easter in it's stead or Pentecost and set up Whitsuntide as parts of Worship I say for so they are by some made and accounted He that will resolve these questions any otherwise will finde himself involved in intricacies enough as I have elsewhere shewed His other demands p. 14. n. 19 20 21. concerning gestures in Prayer in Fasting in Alms-giving what proportions or degrees as also duties in the second Table c. they are all beside the question the three first as being but Circumstances of worship the last as being also no worship at all of which our question is But having thus digressed to give him satisfaction if he will take it we now return to consider what is said to my proofs of this proposition That a man may be to Religious or exceed in Religion The first is If addition may be made to the Rule of Religion then a man may be too Religious the consequence is proved because Addition to the Rule is excess in Religion the Antecedent from Deut. 4.2 where all Additions to Gods Commands are forbidden what sayes he to this He n. 22 23. sayes I prove Idem per Idem absurd enough if it were true but he must be reminded that the question was whether a man might be too Religious which he denied and after my explication of it by distinctions I proved by this argument afore which whether it be to prove idem per idem n. 24. let Logicians judge As for the matter he sayes The major is false in stead of clear If it be false it is in his sense and not in mine and if not clear it is by his obscuring it taking Addition to the Rule of worship for adding some Circumstance of worship which I meant for Addition of worship it self and he confesses That he indeed that introduces any new part of Divine worship is a presumptuous assumer doth more then be should because that which he should not do Just the same that I maintain Let him say He is too bold that doth so I and others say he exceeds in Religion and is too Religious presumption in the worship of God by adding worship to it being an excess But my Assumption is also questioned upon the same willful mistake I fear and my Scripture called to the bar Deut. 4 2. Doth he that prostrates himself in prayer adde to the word of God p. 15. n. 26. then sure he that walks in the garden doth so too c. How oft shall he be told we speak of adding uncommanded worship not of observing Circumstances of time place gestures in commanded worship But let us hear his learned gloss upon this Scripture The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God not to make any change in Gods commands p. 16. n. 26. either to pretend more liberties or fewer obligations or again more obligations and fewer liberties but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts That is his precepts concerning his worship as well as other duties of common life That is if I might gloss it neither to adde to nor detract from his commands of worship but to perform uniform obedience to God c. which is the very thing I have so long pleaded for My second proof was from the School-man who makes Religion a moral virtue standing between too extreams Superstition in the excess and Profaneness or no Religion in the defect This sure is plain and easie but not to the Doctor He grants the two extreams On the one side superstition on the other irreligion Then say I he grants an excess in Religion called Superstition c. But see what a dust he makes to cloud the business Superstition is of two sorts 1. The
he means it thus n. 15. They made no Laws for the observing of Festivals but refers the original of them to custome but the Doctor speaks onely of Apostolical practice so he sayes But first Socrates says nothing of the Apostolical practice but refers it wholly to the custome of several places and people It seemes to me sayes he as many other things were introduced by a custome in divers places so the Feast of Easter by custome in several people had a peculiar different observation Why because none of the Apostles had made any Law concerning it But sure if the Apostles did change it from a Jewish to a Christian Festival and did themselves observe it as exemplary to the Churches they did thereby at first give as good as a Law and make an institution for them to observe And I am perswaded that upon this ground of Apostolical tradition and observation came in all the Superstition in after ages in making them Holy times and parts of Divine Worship c. and they established them as a Law as Socrates said believing them to be Apostolical 2. The truth seemes to me to lie here The Apostles did often frequent the Assemblies of the Jews in the Temple upon their solemnest Festivals as a greater opportunity of fishing in a wide Sea a multitude of people as at Pentecost Acts 2. and again Acts 20 16 Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost for the same reason which custome of the Festivals continuing till the destruction of Jerusalem the Apostles did condiscend to be at them while they lived amongst them Whereupon the following Church seeing this example of their practice took it as a Rule to observe the Feasts especially the Jewish Christians in Asia being tenacious of their old customes and so kep◠the very same day the Jews did which other Churches after the Jews were grown obstinate finding such a custome of the Feast in hatred of the Jews changed into the Lords day as Augustine observes Epist 119 Can. Nicen. de Fest Pasch by Constantines perswasion But see the tenaciousness of men for Traditions of their Fathers The Doctor cares not what he can to weaken or question the Authority of the Lords day to strengthen and stablish his Easter Feast p. 245. n. 17 It will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any other evidence for the weekly Christian Sabbath or Lords day then the custome and practice Apostolical the New Testament hath no where any giving of Law conerning it But sure it will be easie for the Diatribist to manifest a palpable difference between the Lords day and his Easter out of Scriture the best Record beside what is said out of prime Antiquity For 1. We finde the Name there as a day of Christian Assemblies but not a word of Easter 2. We finde the Apostles practice and observation of it but never of Easter 3. We finde grounds in Scripture for the institution or designation of the day but nothing for Easter but rather the contrary prohibition The grounds of the weekly Christian Sabbath it 's well he will allow the Lords-day so honourable a Title he cannot say so much for his Easter Feast and some of his way would have scornfully called it Your Saint Sabbath The grounds I say are these 1. For a solemn day of rest which is a Sabbath we have the fourth Commandment morall in the judgement of its greatest enemies 2. We have it granted that the day must not be less then one in seven yea one day in seven is granted moral in the fourth Commandment by the Doctor * p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week c. himself 3. Christ in Matt. 5. came to stablish and not destroy this Law amongst the rest 4. We have Christian exercises performed on the day beside prayer and preaching and Lords Supper collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day which presupposes the day * That which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so in his 4. Quaer s 94. before designed by Christ or his Apostles All this together amounts to a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or institution And lastly the uniform observation of this day in all ages in all Churches must needs presuppose it to be a Divine Ordination Not one of all these can he truly prove applyable to his Easter Feast Away then with such unworthy comparisons But we shall meet it again ere long And yet Isaid p. 245. n. 19. and say again The observation of Easter hath better Antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical He answers The Apostolical practice being so evident there can be no doubt then the Analogy holding the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian Festival to another will certainly justifie the observation c. The question is not now of the observation of either but the Antiquity so that this was a meer evasion There are histories and traditions and ancients that speak of Easter in the second Centurie but not one word of Christmas and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it which to me is a good evidence there is none And as for Analogy from one Festival to another it holds as well thus If there can be produced neither Apostolical institution nor observation of Easter as a Christian Festival as is probably evinced above then much less is there any ground for the institution or observation of Christmas as an Holy-day But this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main business When I granted the Antiquity of some Festivals in the third or fourth Century might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman Antichristain See adhering to them The Doctor is overjoy'd n. 1. p. 247. and congratulates the unexpected success of his paper But without any cause for it wrought nothing with me being of that opinion before that Rome was not at that time Antichristian But to discover my meaning and to cool his boasting I believe the first Institutors of Festivals had a good Intention to commemorate the mercies of God bestowed on us in Christ making them onely circumstances of Worship though some Superstitions did soon after creep into the observation of them But after ages declining more and more till Antichrist got into the throne those Festivals I meant comparatively had at first nothing of that corruption which after adhered to and overwhelmed them both in their Institution and also in their observation Neither did I mean that the Festivals as they were lately observed by some in England had nothing of the Roman See as now it is corrupted having charged the observation of them by the Dr. and
Superstites essent prayed whole dayes and offered sacrifice that their children might survive and out-live them and then addes Ita factum est c. So it came to pass that the word Superstitious was a name of a vice and Religious of a virtue Whence it is observable from him first That Superstition was the name of a vice in it's first Origination 2. That the true Etymologie of it is not from Superstitum cultus but Superstites esse 3. That the notion of Superstition Postea pateit latius was further enlarged for so he sayes that is to signifie more that Superstites esse viz. Superstitum cultus and other things beside and 4. That Superstitiosus and Religiosus differed very much the one a vice the other a virtue which we shall have occasion to make use of again hereafter But thirdly for the sense of those words in Sacred Scripture no Heathen Authour as he floutingly speakes they are now under debate and must be Interpreted by other Scriptures 4. For Lactantius and S. Austin though both of them do refuse Cicero's Etymology of Religio and Religiosus à relegendo fetching it rather à religando and of Superstitio from Superstites esse yet Ludovicus vives a Learned Critick labours to reconcile them and Cicero in the latter For upon S. Austin lib. 4. ad Marcellinum c. 30. he hath these words Cicero does not onely say that they were Superstitious who prayed so for their children for he addes that Name was afterwards enlarged that is accommodated to many other things Cicero speaking of it in the first Origination of it and Lactantius in a second usage denominating them Superstitious qui falsam religionem colerent Superstitemque defunctorum memoriam who did set up a false Religion and Celebrated the memory of the deceased so he Yea Lactantius himself so speaks l. 4. c. 28. Qui novos sibi ritus assumebant ut in Deorum vicem mortuos honorarent hos superstiosos vocabant Nimirum Religio veri cultus Superstitio falsi Where he enlarges Superstition to all False-worship as well as Superstitum cultus But of the difference between Religious and Superstitious we shall have occasion to speak again Section 2. Superstition in the general notion of it is not unfitly defined by the learned School-man A vice contrary to Religion in the excess c. HE begins here with a mistake That I took Aquinas his definition out of Doctor Ames who hath it not at all which I took out of Aquinas himself p. 42. n. 1. setting the place in the Margine where I had it and after explain'd it partly by the words of Amesius and partly out of Aquinas himself because it may seem a paradox that a man can be too Religious Why the Doctor should thus impose upon me I know not except it were to make his Reader believe that I took up my Divinity or trust from some modern Casuist having never read Aquinas my self But let that go with the rest of his secret flouts But we are beholden to him that he agrees with Aquinas not in his definition of Superstition to be an excess in Religion for that he hath disputed against and refused to say any thing to it when it was objected to him in my Preface but in making the Worship of all but God and the Worship of God in any forbidden or abolisht manner to be species of Superstition First I would demand why he added the word abolisht If that be the same with forbidden it was a needless addition if it differ from it then there is another species of Superstition viz. To revive Abolished-worship which yet is contrary to another notion of the * Willwor s 3. p. 19. n. 32. Rites of the old Law are not onely not commanded but forbidden under Christ Doctor when these abstinences touch not taste not c. are imposed and taught as Divine obliging precepts this is an abuse of them which were otherwise innocent things c. Yet now sayes he makes the Worship of God in any abolisht manner to be a species of Superstition By those words out of Aquinas prout non debet in that manner which he ought not I understood not uncommanded Circumstances but Worship as I have often said Nor did Aquinas or Amesius own any such sense of those words but meant it the one of Illegitimeworwip that 's the title of that Question in Aquinas the other of Vndue-worship those are Doctor Ames his words Yet the Doctor taking that to be our sense flies out in this manner If Amesius have owned that sense then he was one of the Gasuists which I forementioned as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribist and if Ursine Doctor Fulk Master Perkins are rightly cited in his margine c. then we have perhaps the full catalogue of them and the Diatribist is now of age to consider whether they have proved or onely dictated in this matter Upon a meer mistake for they all four no Contemptible Authors with many more mean the same with Aquinas Worship not commanded but Added by the will of man My distribution of the Subject of the four first Commandments into 1. the Object 2. the Matter 3. the Manner 4. the Time of Worship he sayes p. 43. n 2. They are no way qualified for such a structure to conclude all excess in any of these to be Superstition there being scarce any one minute part of sound Doctrine in all this I am sorry to see the Doctor so poor a Catechist as no better to understand the difference of those four Commandments Not any one minute part of sound Doctrine in all this Then sure most of our reformed Divines are very unsound who make the same distinction in sense that I do as I could easily prove and shall make appear in all the particulars when we hear what he sayes to them In the first n. 3. which hath most of truth yet this failing there is that the right object of Worship is not the principal matter of that Commandment but the worship it self c. There is then this minute part of sound Doctrine in my words that the right object of worship though it be not the principal yet it is some part of that first Commandment Yea this is the principal matter or object of the Commandment in the express words God alone is to be worshipped without any rivals to or in that worship For the Commandhath two parts a Negative no other Gods an Affirmative but Me or before My face and both concern the object of our worship and not one word of the worship it self but that followes by way of Consequence If we have a God natural reason tells us he must be worshipped he must be treated with addressed to c. as the Doctor speaks which are not properly worship but the manner how we must come to him to tender our worship neither is there the least mention of parts of worship
Apostles age is the first that writes about it and all he says is from certain Epistles received by Tradition n. 3. he sayes All the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day as from a more ancient Tradition and a custome long before delivered to them which says the Doctor considering the time wherein this question was agitated at the end of the second Century can amount to little less then Apostolical But more then this in the Epistle of Pollycrates to Victor he says Many Biships of Asia observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel keeping exactly the Canon of faith no way wavering from it A good while after comes Nicephorus no very credible Authour and says n. 10. Following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning and that expresly from Saint Peter the Apostle which says the Doctor most confidently still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian Festival was observed and celebrated by the Apostles c. This was spâ—ken for the practice of the Western Church whâ— kept on the Lords day but the Eastern observation might fall on any other day of the week as the Jewish Pasch did But Socrates in his time observed n. 16. That several nations had their several customes of observing Easter That is as his words are As in many other things so also the Feast of Easter by custome in every nation had a peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 private observation because none of the Apostles gave to any a Law about it Now these things hang not well together I shall propound some considerations to cool the Doctors confidence to weaken if not to break this his standard of all other Festivals and to make it more then probable that it is not Apostolicall 1. The best and onely ground he findes to pitch his Standard on is but Tradition unwritten Tradition not the least title of Scripture consequence but that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which by and by The plea is the very same with Papists for their Festivals and other Ceremonies Socrates who relates the debate between the Eastern and Western Churches and their plea on both sides from several Apostles addes But not a man of either side could produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a written demonstration of these things They all plead unwritten uncertain Tradition Whereas a standard for all Festivals should have at least one foot standing upon a written word It is too much though too ordinary for the Doctor to comply with Rome in the countenancing of unwritten Traditions 2. Traditions Apostolical do sometimes imply their written Institutions and instructions Hold the Traditions * Traditiones vocat doctrinae institutu Religionis Christianae c. Estius in locum which ye have been taught by word or our Epistle 2 Thes 2.15 which no doubt were both the same But the Doctor though in the Authorities pleaded he is content they shall use the words Apostolical Tradition often yet himself waves it and never calls his Festivals an Apostolicall Tradition but an Apostolical observation * The words of Nicephorus in the margine p. 242. n. 5. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolical Authority which is more then custome practice c. not Englished by the Doctor custome practice n. 10.17 18 19. The reason is because an Apostolical Tradition to the Churches to keep might well infer an Institution and so Divine Authority which he knew he could never prove and therefore pleads Onely the Practice Apostolical and not their commanding it by Law n. 17. But say I Apostolical Practice onely makes it more uncertain and more unable to bear his Standard because they practised many things not as Christians or to be conveyed to Christian Churches but meerly too comply with the Jewes their countrey-men to win them the better as was said above 3. p. 242. n. 5 6. Yet what is that less then an Apostolical Divine Institution which Polycrates and his fellows plead for their custome All which saith he observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel not at all transgressing but following the Canon of Faith But then it might be feared and inferred that Peter and Paul transgressed both against the Gospel and Canon of Faith in their contrary custome Let him see to that Is it not very probable that Paul who was often and long in Asia would have withstood Philip and John to their faces as he did Peter the prime Apostle in a like case Gal. 2. for judaizing and complying with the Jews in the Festival who had set up another Day in the Western Church or rather had cryed down the observation of such dayes in other Churches Rom. 14. Gal. 4. 4. If it were I say not of Apostolical Divine institution of Apostolical observation and practice as a Christian Festival would they have differed so in their Tradition of it to the Churches being guided all by the same Spirit would Philip and John observe and leave to the Eastern Churches the Jewish day and Peter and Paul the Lords day all of them jointly having appointed in all Churches a weekly day for the commemoration of the Resurrection which is also made the foundation of Easter day It 's nothing probable 5. If the Eastern observation of Easter was according to the Gospel and Canon of Faith how came it to pass that that custome was abolished as it was and the Western was established was not this to set the Churches together by the eares both of them pleading Apostolical Tradition 6. The Romish plea for their custome from Peter and Paul may reasonably be judged to be forged as their primacy of the Pope is For 1. it's most probable that Peter was never at Rome but uncertain and false Tradition so would have it as our best Divines do make it appear 2. It s most improbable that Paul who was so vehement against all observation of Feasts except the Lords day should institute or practice the same Festival and that at Rome and so build again what he had destroyed Rom. 14.6 Gal. 4. 7. It s no way credible that the Apostles all or any of them would first cry down the Festivals as Jewish and presently set it up as Christian or 2. set up an annual day for the commemoration of the Resurrection the Lords day being before set up for the same end 3. Or lay such a ground of difference to the succeeding Churches by different timeing of it Credat Judaeus apella Non ego 8. How came that contest between Victor and the Afiaticks about the day when the same difference was between him and the French and Brittain Churches No less then a threefold different observation of Easter in the Western Churches as was noted 9. Why does not the Dr. endeavour to recover the day which Philip our Apostle and first planter by some sent hither by him endowed us with and that according to the Gospel and
are his words then he does affirm they may not be abolished by any person or Church Yes upon better reasons they may then they had for using them This were very hard to finde in any after Church that they should be wiser then the Apostles to finde greater reasons for the abolishing then they had for using them He should have said instituting them not using them for we are speaking of a power to institute and abolish And yet here he forgat himself and talkes of reasons Whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted Which word he hath warily waved all this while and pleaded onely Apostolical Practice and not Institution but let it go He therefore hasten'd to examine the present reasons of abolition of this Festival whether they were as important as those whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted viz. that of the pious and thankful Commemoration of the Birth of Christ 2. Whether the reasons for abolition were not fained those of Will-worship and Superstition c. I shall answer first to the second question The Doctor may vainly hope that he hath evidenced them to be fained but will finde them stick too really upon his Festivals in his own opinion and practice which if it be made good I shall venture to say to the first that the reasons of abolition were as and more important then of the Institution because Superstition and Will-worship are most abominable to God and the birth of Christ may be piously and thankfully commemorated upon any other day as well as this And now n. 9. was it not more policy to say no worse then piety in him to wave all my discourse concerning the power of a Church to institute Ceremonies and to take leave to pass it over untoucht Which by the Laws of disputation would not be granted him For does it not concern his Festival neerly to know whether the Authority instituting it was sufficient if not its void ipso facto If so it behoved him to manifest it having asserted that this or any Church of the like foundation is invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for its self which consequently may not without great temerity be changed and abolished by any However this being excepted to and that as I think upon very good reasons it concerned him to have given me and the Reader satisfaction herein But let us hear how he colours his tergiversation The two branches of his proposition were no way concerned in any part of my state of the question 1. That a national Church planted by the Apostles or their successors may lawfully use a Festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ c. 2. That such an usage when it hath gained a reception ought not to be declaimed against as Antichristian or laid aside by persons under authority c. For this latter there is scarce one word of it in his proposition and for the former it must necessarily be founded upon this supposition That such a Church hath unquestionable power to institute such a Ceremony such a Festival Which if it be not proved as it is meerly begged let the using or usage be never so ancient having concurrence of other Churches yet it wants Authority for the continuance of it For the Doctor must know that its one thing To use a day for the Commemorating of the birth of Christ and on it to pray to praise God c. exhorting all good Christans to partake thereof and to lay aside their ordinary labours c. and another thing to institute a day as a Religious Festival making it as sacred as the Lords day Sabbath a part of Worship and a sin to work upon that day as Papists and the Doctor do And consequently if such Superstition and Will-worship be gotten into the observation of such a day it may be declaimed against in those respects as Antichristian and laid aside by those that have power in their hands which whether they had sufficiently who laid his Festival aside I leave to the Doctor to debate it with them as not concerning me who do believe that I have sufficient Authority from the word of God I say not to abolish an usage or custome not to observe any such day as is guilty of Superstition and Will-worship But to satisfie his credulous Reader who takes all his words as an Oracle he slurs my four leaves discourse thus n. 10. I shall omit now to take notice of the infirmities which this discourse of his is as full of as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected If it were so though others judge it not so it was the easier for him to have answered his charity uses not to hide or spare my infirmities In his 8. and 9. Sections p. 252. n. 1. c. there is little of moment to our main business some jerks and squibs there are not worth taking notice of and therefore I shall as he did with much more material things of mine take leave to pass them by untoucht and proceed to the next That I proved what I said p. 255. n. 3. That the first and purest ages of the Church did not observe his Christmas is the scope of my 6 and 7. Sections of Fest 1. By disproving the Antiquity of Easter to be Apostolical by three arguments which are again applied Sect. 27. to his Christmas and the Doctor ought to have taken notice of them 2. By the utter filence of the most ancient Records of the usages of the Church for the first 200 years at least which is most improbable they would not take notice of if then in use and practise Truly to use his own words my eyes or my memory very much fail me or he hath not in any degree out of any the most Ancient Records given any one instance of any one Father that speak one word of his Christmas Festival All he pleads is but the Analogie of it with that of Easter which hath been sufficienty spoken to and will again here which might plead something though not much for the observation of it when it was once set up but nothing at all for the Institution or Antiquity of it n. 4. And therefore he finely puts it off thus The dimness or want of stories of those times makes it not so evident of this of Christmas yet the Analogy holding directly between them the argument remains as firm that the laying aside those Festivals is a separation from the Apostolick purest times But first the Doctor speaks of the dimness of the first ages which sure is a figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dimness for cimmerian Egyptian darkness The stories of those times would have been as clear for Christmas as for Easter if such a solemnity and usage had been in being in Ignatius and the next to him or in * Tertullian a man of great learning a diligent observer and recorder of the Customes and Practices of the most
day to be no sin I intended it ad bominem to the Doctor supposing and making the day to be an Holy-day and part of Worship as the Sabbath and Paschal day were wherein to mistake the day was criminous Yet let the Doctor consider how near he and others have been to sin upon the mistake of the day in the Collect for Christmas day they used to pray thus Almighty God which hast given us this day thy Son to be born of a pure Virgin c. If Christ was not born on this day as it 's very uncertain is not this a manifest untruth telling it not onely to men but to God too in their holy Prayers But enough of that The Superstition and Will-worship are the crimes that were charged upon his observation of the Festival oftentimes before and here more fully and directly but the Doctor will take no notice of it but leaps over five or six leaves together p. 264. n. 14 And mark how he excuses this omission What Superstition is charged by Chemnitius on Papists observation of their Holy-dayes is all answered before it be produced by this consideration that Chemnitius allows this and other Festivals which is all he contended for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of Papists But first though Chemnitius did allow of his Festivals yet not of his Superstition in the observation of them any more in him then in Papists 2. The Doctor hath taken upon him to be advocate for some Festivals which are in the Papists Calendar at least as well as in ours in England and pleads for them with the same arguments that they do 3. The same Superstitions charged upon Papists observation of their Holy-days are by me there charged upon some yea many amongst us in some of those particulars and the instances are all taken out of the Doctors Tract of Festivals and so intended him for one of the guilty persons but because it seems I did not name the Doctor he takes no notice of all this I shall therefore now charge home and lay it so in his way as between two walls that he cannot avoid the seeing of it unless he will tergiversari turn back or else fly over all as formerly he hath done or rather which I wish fall down before the Truth and give Glory to God But before I come to demonstrate that the Doctor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned of those two crimes I desire it may be remembred first That I having set down several Species of Superstition p. 6. s 5 c. and most of them taken out of the Doctor himself in his Tract of Superst he puts in no exception against them but seemes if silence be consent to grant them all Some at least he assents to in this discourse p. 30. n. 30. 32. 2. That here again I having shewed the several ways of the Superstition charged by Chemnitius on the observation of Holy-days by the Papists and applied them in particular to himself he neither gives consent to them by his silence or willfully declines to vindicate himself from the charge For if he could not assent unto them it concern'd him to have denied and opposed them in both the places as dangerous grounds to conclude against his own opinion and practice and had given me occasion thereby to confirm them by Reason and Testimonies of Orthodox Divines which being not by him done I might the rather take them as granted and onely borrow the propositions from him and leave him or the Reader to make up the conclusion as thus first To place more holiness in days then God hath placed in them is superstitious So Chemnitius asserts so I laid it down Superst Sect. 10. and it is generally the judgement of our Divines upon this sufficient reason because God onely can Sanctifie things or times for the Sanctifying of those that use them This is thus far yeilded by the Dr. himself That to place more holiness in them then is due to them is faulty Superst s 50. If I count it holy in that degree then I offend not implying if he did more he then offended and being there provoked by me to shew what degrees of holiness a Church or Person puts upon things or times he again waves it in his last as able to asign none and then the proposition is undeniable To place holiness or more holiness in dayes then God hath placed in them is Superstitious But the Doctor and his Symmists places holiness in days where God hath placed none and more then God hath placed in them That God hath placed no Holiness in his Festival is confessed by denying Christ or his Apostles to have instituted it Of Fest Sect. 28 77. That he places holiness in it appears by his own words when he says The day is to be esteemed above other days of the year Lords days too it seems consecrating it from common to sacred uses Ibid. s 59. that for his opinion and judgement And that in practice he placed more at least equal holiness in it with the Lords day he confesses That the day hath been observed if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year c. Sect. 24. Yea more strictly said I with more solemn services with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day on which sports were permited but no touching of Cards or Dice that day Ibid. The Assumption then is justified the Doctor does place more holiness in his Festivals then God hath placed in it Therefore he is Superstitious 2. To esteem the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God than the observation of any other day the Lords day it self and then the services done on other days is a superstitious vanity So Chemnitius So I asserted Superst s 13. to which the Doctor enters no discent or if he should I would thus confirm it because it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospel The Drs. own words in a like case Superst s 45. But the Doctor esteems the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God then c. For the observation of the day he makes it a Free-will-offering to dedicate and consecrate the day to God and asserts of the Institution of it See this account p. 197. n. 4. p. 229. n. 14. more and greater acceptance c. It is more then lawful pious in it self Sect. 77 And the services to be more acceptable to God then on other days results from his frequent assertion That such services being not commanded are the more acceptable because voluntary So he says When in the service of God a man out of a pious affection shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is to be accounted so much more
whole Church in a manner runs madding into these very great abuses But said I this is pretty untempered morter and the sowing pillows under profane mens elbows For 1. For the eating part I meant the Riotous part he knows the Apostle did abolish the Love Feasts themselves not stay to reform the great and general abuses of them 2. For the sporting part such as was much unbeseeming the Festivity of such a Saviour the Doctor will not yeild that that shall be abolished save in case onely of great and general abuses Nay 3. not for great and general abuses Till they be so great as to out-ballance the good uses and so general that the whole Church runs madding into them 4. Those abuses I said have been long so great that they have out-ballanced the good uses and so general that the whole nation hath run mad into them and yet the eating and sporting part the riot revellings was never attempted to be reformed for those too common unreformable abuses the like whereof were found in and caused the abolition of those Love-feasts as he said p. 270. n. 18. Yet see again his good will and and respect to the Lords-day thus he says I as heartily wish a devout p. 272. n. 24 conscientious profitable observation of the Lords-day as of any other Festivity c. How greatly is God and his Day beholden to his liberality He says not I could wish the Festival days were as devoutly c. observed as the Lords-day that had prefer'd it a little as the standard of observation of Holy-days But his way depresses it below his Festivals and makes them as he did Easter above p. 243. the standard of devotion to the Lords-day And it 's very like his practice in observation of the Days was answerable for he told us of Christmas day That it was observed with much more at least as strictly as any Lords-day in the year Equal strictness was too much but more is more unequal and unjust This he would evade by interpreting the words by those which follow In frequenting the services of the Church in use of the Liturgy Sermon Sacraments c. without prejudice to the Lords-day on which the Lords Supper was not constantly celebrated But this confesses the fact that besides all that pompous shew in Cathedrals of Vestments and Musick c. the * The Sacrament of the Lords Supper I make an ingredient in the strictness of the Celebration of of the Festivity numb 27. pag. 172. Lords Supper which he knows was anciently celebrated every Lords-day and somewhere oftner should be enjoyned strictly to be celebrated on Christmas day and was by some so observed and not on the Lords-day This imported some greater Holiness and Honour to that day above the Lords-day and we then might have wished as heartily as the Doctor does now that the Lords day might have been kept as devoutly c. as the Festival day and fit it was it should have had some preheminence as being of Divine Institution which his Festival had not The Apostolical Institution of the Lords-day was I thought granted by the Doctor Fest Sect. 31. and Apostolical Institutions to be Divine was also asserted Quer. 1. s 22. p. 273. n. 30. Yet how willingly would he and how subtlely does he retract what he had granted to make either the Lords-day equally Ecclesiastical with his Festival or his Festival equally Apostolical with the Lords-day For I having charged him to assert Sect. 57. The Lords-day to be by the same authority appointed viz. of the Church See how he shuffles to avoid it first I did grant it though I know not in what words of Scripture that Institution of the Lords day is set down Was he not then too rash to acknowledge what he could not by Scripture some way make out He pleads Infant Baptism to be the institution of Christ of Apostolical Practice though he cannot tell where to find either of them in Scripture He might have gratified the Lords-day with the same allowance especially having the mention of the Lords-day there and observation of it by the Apostles which presupposes an Institution which the other wants 2. He takes off the objection from s 57. thus p. 273. n. 30. Those words there used Though the Lords-day be by the same authority appointed do not belong to the stating of the question and no affirmation that the Lords-day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas-day c. Let the Reader turn to the place and judge He had said The same Church or any other authority equal to that obliges c. Then follows And though the Lords day be by the same Authority appointed that must needs be the Church which obliges c. 3. But he goes on and says He is confessed in my Margent to have said the Apostles instituted the Lords day and he speaks as plainly Sect. 57. of Christmas day that it hath it's Institution and usage from the universal Church But I ask if he equivocate not with us does not this put a plain difference between the Institution of the Lords-day and christmas-Christmas-day the one Apostolical the other Ecclesiastical or else he must make them both of the same Authority and was not that his designe without any calumny Here yet more 4. Either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be taken so as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles Instituted the Lords-day and either they personally or their successours used and delivered down the other Festivals of Easter c. But this is a miserable prevarication For 1. What means he by the Church of the * See p. 39. n. 4. Universal Church including the Apostles chief pastors thereof or the succeeding Churches with their Governors Apostles which instituted the Lords-day either the Apostles themselves as it 's usual with some to call the Rulers the Bishops onely the Church and then it is of Divine Institution and so differs sufficiently from Institutions of the succeeding Church or Rulers Or the Church without or with the Apostles but he cannot shew any such power in the Church to institute Ceremonies as parts of Worship without them or with them neither then could it be called an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical rather if the Apostles were not considered as Apostles but as Governors of the Church and so not of Divine Institution 2. Yet how doubtfully he speakes of his Christmas Either they personally or their Successours used and delivered down the other Festivals If not they personally but their successours then behold a different authority again they personally instituted the Lords-day but not his Christmas then they are not both by the same authority appointed 3 Yet more warily They or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals He should have
said they not used that imports but their practice but appointed or instituted the Festivals and delivered them down c. Or else the difference would again appear the one had Institution the other onely usage or practice And he may remember how he hath all along declined Apostolical Institution and pleaded onely their practice for his Festivals and now declines the Churches Institution also and talks onely of their using and delivering them down to posterity 4. He was speaking of the same authority for the Lords-day and Christmas day but now concludes with Easter day and other Festivities The reason is because he hath something in story for Easter not as an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical usage onely but not a word in the prime Antiquity for his Christmas either Institution or observation So this was a blinde for his Reader Lastly what needed all this wariness and modesty when we shall hear him take confidence upon him shortly to affirm Christmas is certainly derived from the Apostles p. 276. n. 3. Of which in it's place For the lawfulness of Cards and Dice even in his holy Festival p. 274. n. 32. as at other times we have here the Doctors opinion I purpose not to follow him into a new controversie enough hath been said by learned men and perhaps enough against them by some both Ancient Fathers beside Heathens and modern Casuists whom the Doctor will not vouchsafe to read to perswade tender consciences to forbear them And as for those that allow and plead for their lawfulness they bring in so many cautions that if it be not impossible it 's very improbable that one of an hundred doth or can observe them The Doctor himself hath some considerable 1. Used moderately 2. As diversions 3. No way abused by our inordinacy that is Mr. Gatac of Lots c. 8. p. 236 c. as others have it a man must not spend 1. Too much time 2. Too much patience 3. Too much estate at them and many others too long to repeat too hard for most Gamesters to remember much more to observe and practise Amongst the rest unseasonable use is one offence when they are used in times that require more then ordinary Holiness as Festivals this of Christmas especially were accounted Now if that Authour and the Doctor would allow them lawful yet at that time they were surely very unseasonable intertainments of a Festivity for a Spiritual Saviour and as the Doctor grants n. 35. Services fitter for the Revels of Bacchus c. But let the Dr. and others but say as they do Cards and Dice are lawful people will run away with the allowance and leave them to come after with the cautions And if these abuses in violation of the caution be ordinary and almost inseparable from those sports and unreformable as he said of the like in the Love-feasts not one of many thousands observing nor caring to observe them it will not become the Doctors great Piety to open that door to profaneness which he will never be able to shut again But he knows these were but part of the Festivals intertainments in many great houses there were promiscuous dancings and Lords of misrule and besides surfetting and drunkenness chambering and wantonness the common attendants and consequents of such liberty which as they were not endeavoured to be reformed so are in the vulgar unreformable unless by abolition of the occasions As I believe the Doctor will finde when ever he goes about it To regest the same abuse n. 34 35. on the Lords day or the like hath been shewn to be very impertinent and injurious to the dispute between us And so much for that How undeniable or rather how uncertain and insufficient his evidences were p. 275. n. 3. that the Feast of Easter was observed by the Apostles as a Christian Feast or Holy-day hath been made appear above and the case to be the same between Easter and Christmas hath also been considered and thus far yeilded or proved that neither of them were of Apostolical Institution or observation and it was sufficient for me to use no other arguments against his Christmas than against his Easter those that were used against one being rather more strong against the other The arguments were three the last whereof from the different observation of it the Doctor waves and upon his former Supposition that Easter was not Instituted but observed by the Apostles he tells us His affirmation muâ—… ascend higher then it ever meant to have done and not proceed disjunctively that this Feast is derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church but leaving out the latter part of the partition fix upon the former that being yeilded to have the same Original with Easter it is certainly derived from the Apostles as Easter was This is no more then I expected that the Doctor would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.13 ascend higher in his after affirmations thâ—n ever he meant to have done Errour is like a swift running river which upon opposition rises higher and growes more violent But I expected he would rise one degree yet higher that is from an Apostolical usage or observation to an Institution It may be he means so much by the word derived from the Apostles Easter it self was not pleaded as an Apostolical Institution buâ— Observation which how unsatisfying it is was shewed above And mark the proof here the evidences now brought are not for Easter but for other Festivities of Ignatius and Polycarp n. 4 5. who died after the Apostles and to see the luck of it if I may use his words are rased out of our Church Calendar Yet from these n. 6. p. 276. the Dâ—ctor assumes or resumes his former affirmation without all diffidence that other Festivals besides that of the weekly Lords day were derived to us some certainly from the Apostles others from the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles If I should have made so loose an Inference upon such premises my Logick had heard of it on both ears The Affirmation was that certainly Christmas was derived from the Apostles because Easter was so Easter was so because the Festivities of Ignatius and Polycarp were set up soon after the Apostles And the conclusion is other Festivals were derived some certainly from the Apostles others from the succeeding Church Some certainly from the Apostles pray which were they leave out but the Lords-day which was not derived onely if that signifie onely usage but instituted by the Apostles and say without begging which were they Easter and Chrismas which is the question But how came in the Lords-weekly-day here of which no question but it was of Apostolical Institution either to give it a slubber that it was but an Apostolical usage to level it with his Festival or to baffle his Reader that he might not stumble at his too confident affirmation that Christmas was certainly derived from the Apostles because the Lords-day was so And
yet after all this confidence see his diffidence where to place the Original of his Chrismas for thus he goes on In one of which ranks Apostles or succeeding Church though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity is to be placed Yet because we have not those evidences of the Fact which we have of Easter and others I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainty nor affirm more then what the Tratise hath shewed out of the Ancient Fathers that this Feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity Parturiunt montes c. Sure the first Antiquity was from the Apostles dayes but he dare not lay it upon them certainly Though Constant in the fourth Cent. did make orders for the observation of the Lords day and other days yet not a word of Christmas which is very strange if then in usage because of uncertainties and yet affirmed confidently it was derived from them Socrates tells us the Apostles did not settle any Laws for Festivals then not for this of the Nativity how then was it derived from the Apostles And if derived from the Apostles authority how is it not an Apostolical Institution The Doctor shifts off this by their observation which of his Christmas can never be proved Thus he shakes off also his friend the Lord Falkland who in all probability hath discovered the Original of this and other Festivals He is also silent to what I said of his reasonable Inducement for the Institution of this Festival concluding with his old mistake if I may not call it a calumny That all uncommanded performances are here again blasted by the express words of the second Commandment and Col. 2.23 Which was spoken onely of uncommanded Worship But sure to use his own words we have formerly spoken enough and too much of this arguing Concerning the Feast of Dedication I shall not need to be long p. 277. n. 1. First I said there were reasons to think it was not a Religious Festival but civil as that of Purim seems to be Est 9.21 22. For first it 's certain of this last that it was not observed with Acts and Services of Religion Sacrifices c. because those must be observed onely at Jerusalem upon the Altar there which was demolished at that time but this of purim was observed at Shusan where had they an Altar they might not offer sacrifice See supra p. 46. n. 14. p. 281. n. 20. or keep a Religious Feast by the Doctors own confession 2. It 's said they kept it as they ordered it A day of Feasting and joy and sending portions and gifts to the poor Without any mention of Religious services The like is said of the Feast of Dedication They ordered it should be kept yearly with mirth and gladness but no command or order for Sacrifices in after times the Doctor is very confident that it was a Religious Feast and would prove it from the text 1. Maccab. 4.56 They rose up early and offered Sacrifices according to the Law c. And the people fell down upon their faces worshipping and praising God c. But first the Doctor joyns things together which are distant in the text for he says n. 8. Ordaining that it should be so kept for the future from year to year So kept is not in the text as if they ordain'd it should be kept with Sacrifices as at first it was but only kept with mirth and gladness 2. Sacrifices at a Feast made not the Feast Religious there were Sacrifices offered every day at Jerusalem when they kept a civil Feast As amongst us the birth days or coronation days of our Kings were but civil Feasts to be kept with mirth and joy suppose there were any prayers or preaching on those dayes these would not make those Feasts Religious The fifth of Novemb. was commanded to be kept as a day of joy and rejoycing and prayers and preaching onely in the morning but yet I think the Doctor will not call it a Religious Feast At our private Feasts the Lord Majors day or days of the Companies Feasts they meet at Church and have prayers and preachings yet those Feasts are not called Religious Feasts but Civil 3. Those Sacrifices offered are said to be according to the Law that may be understood either with respect to the Altar now reedified where they were by Law commanded onely to offer or with respect to the kinde of offerings which were all ordered by Law May not says he burnt-offerings according to the Law approved and commanded be used in a Religious Feast No doubt they may and must if so commanded But the question is whether offerings of that kinde might not be used also in a civil Feast among the Jews and the Doctor must not beg it And if those Sacrifices were commanded by the Law they were no Free-will offerings which onely pretend to Worship which mirth and gladness the other ingredients of that Feast could not do In all this hitherto said there was no great conviction p. 279. n. 10 to prevail with me That this was a Religious Feast instituted by the Church I shall try once more to convince the Doctor that either it was not a Religious Feast or not approved by God Thus I argue To make a new kinde of Worship not commanded by God is unlawful and not approved by God But to make a Religious Feast not commanded by God is to make a new kinde of Worship ergo The Major is the Doctors own concession above The Minor is proved because a Religious Feast was and is a part of Worship as is evident in all the Feasts of Gods Institution then it follows that either they did not make the Feast of Dedication a Religious Feast or if they did they transgressed the Rule and could not be approved by God That the Doctor makes it a Religious Feast is evident by his earnest pleading for it under that notion and disclaiming it as civil If he shall say as it 's all is left to say they made it not a part of Worship but a Circumstance of worship he first makes it not a Religious Feast for which he hath so much pleaded and then hath lost his instance of this Feast to his purpose for then it was no more an Holy-day then any other day of the year And now he may consider how well he hath demonstrated the vanity of all my three Diatribees of Superstition Will-worship Festivals and the rest For he makes his Festival a Will-worship that is a Worship uncommanded and so a Religious Feast and a part of Worship and so will be found guilty of Superstition and Will-worship in observation of his Festival which is supra statutum an Addition to the word against the second and fourth Commandments and Col. 2.23 n. 11. And thus I shall assert If his Christmas Feast be answerable perfectly to this of the Dedication and hold analogy with that as he says
hath or can bring to prove those that neglect his Festivals to be Hereticks or if the Doctor should be partial to himself I shall appeal to the impartial Reader whether he be not by his word and by strong reason obliged to do more then deny the accusation The rest in this Section as they have been often spoken to so they are impertinent to the main business and I pass them over And now having made it appear which was my main design that the Institution of his Festival was not Apostolical and the observation of it as of late was attended with Superstition and made a Will-worship I shall not need to draw the Sawe any longer about the Antiquity of this and other Festivals This may suffice for them all If they were Instituted at first as Holy-dayes parts of Worship c. they cannot be freed from the guilt of Superstition c. If onely as circumstances of time to meet for the Worship of God as it is nothing to our dispute and denies them to be any holier then other days So it was by me from the beginning to the end of this last Diatribe granted lawful see Sect. 75. due cautions being observed Wherein the Doctors ingenuity suffers not a little that he takes no notice of these my concessions but carries it so as if he would have his Reader believe I absolutely made such times unlawfull As for those Testimonies of Origen Cyprian and Chrysostome produced he says in his Pract. Cat. p. 288. n. 11 p. 180. The first Origen speaks indeed of Innocents day in his time observed but not a word of Christmas day The next of Cyprian in the third Century if he mean it of his Sermon de Nativitate it s branded by many learned men as Spurious and none of his So is that of Chrysost also as I could have pleaded but that I saw no validity in his proofs of the Antiquity of the Festival but much uncertainty both that he tells us it was not fixed at Antioch in his time to such a day which different observation argues it not to be Apostolicall as also that he palpably mistakes the grounds of his Demonstration That Zachary was high Priest and that it was the Feast of Tabernacles which both were proved false But the Doctor takes no notice of this my answer but thinks to evade by saying That the question at that time p. 291. n. 11 belonged not to the Festivity it self but onely to the particularity of the day the 25. of Decemb. For its observable that he also speaks of the Feast it self p. 512. l. 25. That the Feast was so speedily promulgate and ascended to so great an height and flourisht and the words a little before That it was manifest and illustrous to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira with the Doctors Comment on them from East to West which sure with him signifies all the world over cannot be meant of the particular day for then there would have been no question in Chrysost time about it if the day had been so manifest and illustrous all the world over Besides Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. himself if it be he tells us afore that it was not yet ten years since this day was manifested therefore in the other words he spake of the Feast it self not of the particular day So likewise in those words alluding to Gamaliels speech What he spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Gospel sure I speak the same of this day if it be of God c. not onely it shall not be dissolved but every year increase and be more illustrous cannot be meant of the particular day which was different in divers places but of the Festivity it self And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Preaching must not be meant of it n. 13. i. e. the day certainly as the Doctor glosses it for the words may better bear this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because the Preaching also i. e. of the Gospel of which Gamaliel spake not of the day in a few years took possession of the whole world c. Which if it were taken of the Feast or day would prove more then the Doctor intended that the Apostles not onely observed but instituted the Festivity also It was not fairly done for the Doctor in Interpretation of the words to leave out the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which there must signifie also as spoken of another thing However this very Testimony of the different time of observation of it to me is sufficient to prove it not of Apostolical observation much less Institution But enough of this The Doctors premises being thus invalidated p. 292. n. 2. his conclusion must needs be weak and as it is unjust charging those that rejected or observed not his Festivals both as Hereticks as newly afore as also as Schismaticks As an act of affected departure from the Vniversal Church in all ages c. Which I suppose all sober and indifferent men will look upon when they have read and considered what hath been said to his premises as a most injurious caluminy For it hath been made appear 1. That it was no Apostolical Institution 2. Nor Observation 3. Nor Universally observed in all ages and places of the Church 4. Nor when it was observed was it uniformly observed in regard of the day In Epiphanius time it was observed on the same day with that they call the Epiphany * The fixth of January Cassian Collat. 10. c. 2. or Twelfth day by the Brittains on Mid-Winter day about the Winter Solstice the 10. or 11 of Decemb. In Chrysost time the particular day was not fixt at Antioch but very lately came to be known and the Dr. himself twice hath told us it was not universally observed all the world over till about 400 years after Christ But he complains of wrong in my citation of the places as misreported p. 294. n. 8. To which purpose he produces one of the places at large to demonstrate what fidelity I used in citing it Let the Reader peruse his very words and he will acquit me from this charge and I think will conclude as much from him as I say Thus he said Though the particular day was not fixed at Antioch till Chrysostomes time yet from Rome over all the West it had been so observed from the most ancient records of Christianity upon which my conclusion is that it appears at least to be an Ecclesiastical constitution very early received over all the West the far greatest part of Christendome and within 400 years universally solemnized c. Take a short Comment upon these words The particular day was not known at Antioch till Chrysost time in the fourth Century Is it probable that in such an universal observation of the Apostles and Primitive Church they should not have agreed on the day Yet over the West it had been so observed But the West is not over
all the world as he told us in exposition of Chrysost words ad p. 291. n. 11. It appears at least to be an Ecclesiastical constitution but that 's short of Apostolical Institution or Observation which was confidently asserted above very early received over all the West the greatest part of Christendom But that 's far from the primitive times and short of all the world of Christendom whereof there was a considerable part in the East And within 400 years universally solemnized What is this but what I said in sense that it was not universally solemnized till abbat 400 years after Christ that is about the fourth Century His own words within 400 years imports that it was not universally solemnized in the first 300 years and that 's enough for me And what needed the Doctor to be so critical for a word to make a man an offender what cause was there of that out-cry n. 10. What can be more visibly unjust c. But seeing he is so riged why did he not take notice of those other words of Nicephorus The Emperours Edict if it were reconcilable with the Apostles practice p. 289. n. 3. yet never with an universal observatition of it before that time numb 11. That Justinus the Emperour first commanded it to be kept Festival over the world First over the world that is universally in the sixth Century which is sufficient to clear what I said that it was not universally observed in all ages and places what justice was there in this omission I shall onely ask or take the leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this to make use of his words more truly It seems the guilty person hath the priviledge to cry out first and of accusing and judging in any form of language which to whom it belongs let the Reader now judge And one thing more I shall desire his umpirage in whether the Doctor hath dealt fairly with me in leaping over almost four leaves together from p. 191. to the end of 197. where there were many things of near concernment to himself and to the main debate between us There I did as it were challenge him at his own weapon his own rule of judging and resolving of controversies in his first Quere and by application of that rule regulated by his own cautions made it appeare That he cannot prove that in rejecting or not observing of his Festival we have departed from the universal Church in all ages Let the Reader be pleased to review thoses pages of mine and then give sentence Onely he makes some two or three strictures where he thought he had some colour of advantage First I granted p. 293. n. 6. What had the concordant attestation of the Churches of the Apostolical time while they were yet alive was Apostolical but there are not many things so attested And I added What ever doctrine or practice wants such concordant universal uniform Attestation is not Apostolical for they being all guided by one Spirit would all agree uniformly in the same doctrine and practice Which he cavils at but answers not I added this Negative rule partly as more clear and certain to us at such a distance from the Apostles when it 's harder to finde or judge what was Apostolical by such attestation of the Churches then what is not Apostolical in the want of such attestation partly that I might turn his Canon upon himself by shewing that his Festival hath no such concordant universal uniform attestation of the primitive Ancients or Apostolical Churches 2. I added for an instance the concordant Attestation of the Churches of the second and third Centuries for the Millemium Christs reign on earth for a thousand years which found no considerable if any opposition for 250 years and produced the Lord Falklands words to attest it n. 7. All he sayes to it is this I confess this had not formerly been produced but it falls out that I have elsewhere sufficiently cleared it and he cites Qu. 1. s 38. which I took notice of and answered but he neglects it and tells us also of his defence of the Lord Falk Tract of Infallibility which I have not had the opportunity to see But how he will take off the Lord Falk way of arguing to the invalidating of Traditions I profess not to divine And now after a long and tedious journey we are drawing near to our rest where we meet with a complaint and a valediction The complaint is of my Fastidious Reflections upon three Questions returned to the Author of the 16 Queres But sure the three questions were proposed not onely to that Authour but to any that should thinke fit to resume this business into consideration and enquire any further into this Subject And so to me who was unsatisfied with his whole Tract of Festivals and with the manner of his proposing of those three questions And why he should call them Fastidious Reflexions I know not The R. Doctor and men of his way do not love or do not use to state their questions right as in this so in other controversies that so they may have the more liberty to expatiate in ambiguities This is evident in all these three Diatribees of Superstition Will-worship and Festivals My hardest task hath been to finde out the true state of the controversies about them which I saw the Doctor had declined and when it was done did labour to obscure it why he did so let him now consider It 's apparent that in all the three questions he hath mistated them This I shewed him in each particular and all his answer is Fastidious Reflexions But I had more cause to complain of fastidious neglects and omissions In that first by not stating the question aright either first or last he would insinuate to his facile and credulous Reader that I am of opinion that all Circumstances of Worship as time and place c. when established by the Church are unlawful Which I intended onely of uncommanded Worship as himself hath more then once acknowledged for me 2. That he so fastidiously refuses to answer my four questions truly stating the controversies betwixt us Surely it concern'd the Doctor to have answered yea or nay to affirm or deny them or to shew their mistakes in the mistating of them That he endeavours thus In his proposing of 4. other questions p. 295. n. 12 he inserts particulars wholly rejected by me as that of parts of Worship adding as it is propounded s 9. but I hope not by me so propounded of abuse to Superstition and Profaneness c. I shall be little obliged to accept them in his terms to begin new disputes at this time But first that of parts of Worship was necessarily to be inserted into the question both because in circumstances of Worship we differ not or not so much and also for that what ever the Doctor rejects in words he does indeed maintain Will worship Vncommanded Worship and as hath been