then as it is most incredible that those Churches that censured these corruptions should be infected with them so nothing can be more unjust as well as uncharitable and impious then to affix that character on the Churches which belonged only to the hereticks that disturbed and were ejected out of those Churches By this account the Apostolical Churches themselves whilest the Apostles presided in them might be blasted also for we know there was in their very time a mystery of iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceivers and Impostors Antichrists and false teachers good store but as S. Iohn saith of these that they went out from us separated from the Churches and so discovered that they were not of them So it was also after the Apostles death the hereticks and schismaticks infused not their corruptions into the Church and so they cannot with truth be imputed to those that were preserved pure from them the corruptions of the enemies of the Church unto the Churches And however the Doctor have been accused sometimes of complying with the Papists I am confident he never let any thing fall which yielded them so true and solid advantage as this one affirmation of the Diatribist that the corruptions of which the Romish religion is a bundle are those which crept into the Churches not long after the Apostles days For what is that but an agnition that the most accused Romish practices now adays are the same which were delivered to them from the Primitive Church For my part I protest my dissent and so sure doth the whole Church of England and every true son thereof to this conclusion Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feast may not be abolisht among us The Diatribists mistake of the question MY 2d inference now followes that any such ancient usage of this particular Church if it had no other ground to stand on as its foundation or concurrence of all Christian Churches as pillars to sustain it were a very competent authority for the present continuance of such a practice in the Church and that upon this score because the Anglicane Church being one of those which by its foundation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to no forein Patriarch is consequently invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for it self which consequently may not without great temerity be changed or abolished by any To this because I see there are some pages of objections inserted by the Diatribist before I read them over I desire it may be adverted wherein the force of my inference consists viz. in these 3 things 1. that this particular Church of ours being first planted by some either Apostle or Apostolical person was thereby constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of absolute power within it self as that excludes subjection to any other forain power 2dly That in all probability this feast was set up or celebrated here by those that first planted the faith among us i. e. by some Apostle or Apostolical person by Simon Zelotes or by those 12 which were sent higher by Philip the Apostle and Ioseph of Arimathea one of those 3 That what was by so good authority introduced having no equal reason to supersede it such as was the contrary tradition of other Apostles in the businesse of Easter may not without temerity now be abolished by any not by any other person or persons Pope or Consistory because no other hath power over a Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by the Apostles and not subjected by them to any not by the Church it self which cannot now be supposed to have any such persons in it as may be fit to compare with the first founders of it at least not without some greater reason for the changing and abolishing then they may appear to have had for the using of it Upon these grounds my inference being built as is there apparent by the premisses and the very expressions cautiously used in setting it down let us now see what the Diatribist hath to object And 1. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by its foundation he willingly grants subordinate to no forain Patriarch I shall only demand whether it be subordinate to its own sons or to any but the legal Fathers of it I hope it will be as reasonable for me to presume it is not as it was for the Diatribist to grant the former for else M. C. a son of this Church by devesting the Pope of his authority shall only have removed and vested it in himself and such as he translated it from the Papacy to the Presbyterie which I hope he will not professe to do lest that be the very crime which was charged on our Bishops that they assumed to themselves the Papal power or the power of ordaining ceremonies which sure is no greater then that of abolishing them Having made this grant of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this Church it is observable what he presently interposeth Yet saith he we justly question whether it be invested with such unquestionable power to institute what ceremonies it please which may not upon good reasons be changed and abolished In which very form of proposing his question or exception t is visible what change he hath thought fit to make in my inference when I spake of the power of this Church to institute ceremonies for it self I never affirmed of those ceremonies once instituted that they might not upon good reasons be changed and abolished for I doubt not but the same power which may on good reasons institute may on good reasons abolish also But first I desired 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 commemorating the birth of Christ and withall 2. whether those reasons pretended for abolition were not faigned reasons as those taken from the heads of Will-worship and Superstition have I must hope been evidenced to be or again 3. whether they might not otherwise be satisfied as that of the riot charged only as a consequence accidental to the Feast by care and exercise of discipline To which considerations may 4thly be farther added this reasonable aphorisme of Christian policy that what was thus brought in on such grounds by the governors of a Church supposing them but such as are of an ordinary rank of governors and not the Apostolical founders of the Church to whom certainly more respect is due may not be cast out by sons of the Church or indeed by any other then the authority of the succeeding Governors And these few considerations I suppose may competently evidence the unreasonablenesse of this changing the tearms of the question if not of his plea for the abolition of the Festival And therefore whereas upon this occasion he enters into a large discourse concerning the power of the Church to institute ceremonies I shall take leave to passe it over untoucht it being certain that
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
imaginable Sect. 8. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day NOw followes his view of what I had said of the Lords day not instituted by Christ or God himself but by the Apostles without any mention in the New Testament of any prescription or law for the observing of it To this he is very glad to proceed hoping for some great advantage from it let us see what the success will prove And 1. saith he there want not learned men who think that Christ did designe the day But I must demand whether he can imagine that those learned men were in the right in this or have herein exprest any of their learning If he cannot think they have why doth he lose time and gain nothing by the mention of them If he can why doth he not so much as offer their grounds of thus opining when he knowes nor Scripture nor antiquity saith any thing of it and when it were as tolerable in any opposer to offer his opinion also that Christmass day was by Christ himself designed also But then 2dly saith he if the Apostles did institute it that 's more then he dare say of Christmass day And what if it be Doth that prejudge the observing of Christmass supposing it certain as I do suppose that it was either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church Suppose some feasts of the Iewes instituted by God or Moses others by the Church of the Iewes and not by Moses as the Purim and Encaenia Are not these latter as lawfully to be kept to all posterity of the Iews as those former But then 2dly the parallel that I set betwixt the Lords day and Christmass day was only this that as neither of them was found prescribed or by law commanded in Scripture so the want of such law should be no prejudice to the one more then to the other as long as by some other way it appeared of the one that it was derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church as of the other that it came immediatly from the Apostles It being evident that if the Apostles usage gave to one a divine authority the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that though not divine and the latter lawful yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former as the Encaenia were as lawful as the Passover and were obligatory also though not by the same authority By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the observing of Christmass though there should be no certainty of the Apostles instituting it Next he demands If the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ do not their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law I answer that if by institution be meant giving Law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition the predication being identical institution in this sense is prescribing or giving Law But 't is possible that institution of the Lords day by the Apostles may signifie another thing viz. that the Apostles practice assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an institution or a Law with the succeeding Church though indeed the Apostles gave no Law for it or if they did no such Law appears from them The examples of the Apostles are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law And accordingly in this sense also I consent to the Diatribist that their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law and so I shall no way contend with him in this matter Onely upon these grounds I shall demand that whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us through all ages of the Church from the times of the Apostles themselves may be acknowledged also to carry a divine impression upon it And then to omit Episcopacy which he cannot but know hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords day I shall insist onely on the feast of Easter which hath been demonstrated to be derived from the Apostles and so is an instance of all that I pretend in the point of Festivals leaving Christmass day to the equity of proportion and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it Next he proceeds to what I farther say of the no Law that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day In order to which I said that if any thing of that nature be sought there it will rather appear to belong to the annual then weekly feast of the resurrection naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. by some thought to belong to the annual day also Against these he urgeth some authorities of some ancient and modern writers which saith he do not seem to understand these places thus And though t were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies yet I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such Learned men but yielding him all he desires of both these places I must only desire him to remember that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me unlesse he can bring out of the Scripture some other places which are more apodicticall evidences of Apostolicall Law for the weekly Lords day then these are for the annual For the matter is clear all that I was there to prove was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them Sect. 19. Aërius 's herisie that Festivals are unlawfull St Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius ' s. The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of tho Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals IN the 32th § to Epiphanius's censure of Aërius as of an heretick for affirming festivals unlawfull his answer is that all is not heresie that Epiphanius calls so nor all Aërius's opinions justly censured as heretical And so indeed the Diatribist is concerned to think both in respect of this and some other interests that especially of Episcopacy But for the averting of so great a crime it would well become the accused to offer some reason for the clearing himself and not onely to have mentioned the name of Osiander the Epitomizer of the Centuriators wose words are not affirmed to belong to this particular of Festivals and if they did whose authority is sure so Incompetent to weigh with Epiphanius in setting down the sense of the ancient Church that in all reason some evidences should have been annexed to adde weight to him As it is I must not thing strange that they which transcribe that affirmation from Aërius will not allow it to be heresie
more immediately lead into vitious practice I shall never willingly contend with any man or make reply to the contentious But in Doctrines which have immediate influence upon practice t is obligation of charity to indevour the disabusing of all and not to permit or suffer any such fruitfull and noxious error upon my neighbour 8. Under which head because I cannot but place the rejecting of Children from Baptisme and find some objections offered by Mr. Tombes to what I have written on that subject I have therefore drawn a short defence of that Apostolical practice and vindicated my former discourse from his answers and exceptions which being offered to the Reader as soon as the Printer will permit I shall not doubt of his leave to shut up the Palaestra at this time having sufficiently cloyed him with these Spectacles 9. And it is my wish for him that he may continue to have the ease at least of a Spectator that it may be his lot though for some moneths it hath not been mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live peaceably and quietly with all men a felicity of which we are all to be ambitious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a grace that we are all not in prayer onely but by real indevours to contend for and to hold it fast untill it be violently wrested from us 10. As it is I have with patience fortified my self for the present undertaking and to make it also as supportable as may be to others abstained from transcribing the entire severall Sections of his Diatribae and onely repeated as much as exacts answer from me not omitting as far as my wit would serve me any the least particular which can be thought to have energy against any of those things that are asserted by me in those Tracts save only when the same things once answered have again whether in words or sense been repeated by him THE Contents of the severall CHAPTERS and Sections contained herein CHAPTER I. OF Mr. C. his Title Pages page 1 Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endless Genealogies 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9. The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse 1 Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8 9. Gal. 4. 9 10. Deum sic colere quomodo scipsum colendum praecepit Christmass no irrational custome 3 CHAP. II. Of Mr. C. his Preface p. 4 Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes Comparing of Superstition and Wil-worship to Heresie Accounting Superstition our virtue 4 Sect. 2. Of being too Religious of the intension or degree The Messalians Neglect of Charity of particular callings Eccl. 7. 16. Of multitude of Ceremonies Too many Ceremonies no argument of too much but of too little Religion 6 Sect. 3. Mr. C. his distinctions of being too religious multiplied unnecessarily Frequency of duty if secured from other neglects no excess nor criminous Prayer a branch of Natural worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excess in trust c. as well as in Prayer The Species of worship and the circumstances thereof The wide difference between these Times of Prayer not limited by Scripture Set days of worship Gestures Prostration Mr. C. his 3. proofs examined Deut. 4. 2. considering Apoc. 22. 19. A view of Aquinas's doctrine in this matter 8 Sect. 4. Excess of Religion Super statutum Addition to the Rule Doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. Act. 25. 29. Six concessions Superstitiosus Worshipping of Angels Superstitum cultus Slavish fear Religion in Epicurus Fear of punishment in sons in wicked men The necessity thereof Dogmatizing Placing more virtue in things then belongs to them 20 Sect. 5. The innocence of Wil-worship Analogie with voluntary oblationsunder the law Seeming Contradiction The authority of Chrysostome and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment Reducing all sins to the Decalogue Addition to the rule Worship of Angels Other sins beside that of Dogmatizing 32 Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmass Festival Of Church Laws 38 CHAP. III. Of Superstition peculiarly And first of his Prolegomenon on that Subject p. 41 Sect. 1. Answer to § 1. The method used to find the meaning of the word 41 Sect. 2. Answer to § 2. Amesius's definition The matter of the 4 first Commandments The affirmative part of the 2d. Commandment The Diatribist's misadventure about Duty in the midst No prohibition of either holy days in the 4th Commandment Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. The Rubenites altar Josh 22. Naaman's altar Christmass Festival parallel to it The excesses in each Commandment 42 Sect. 3. The species of Superstition Idolatrie belongs to the 2d. Commandment Superstition to the first It differs from Wil-worship The meaning of Illegitimate worship in Aquinas His opinion of Ecclesiastical rites Barbarous ceremonies of Baals worship belong not to the 2d. Commandment Holy days before Popery Two antient Testimonies for them The Jews scrupulosity in not resisting on the Sabbath day 49 Sect. 4. The Diatribist's method and caution in setting down the species of Superstition 53 CHAP. IV. Of the particular exceptions of the Diatribist to the Tract of Superstition p. 55 Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt 55 Sect. 2. The nature of the word Excess of fear among the Epicureans Superstitio from Super and sto not statuo Aquinas misreported 56 Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the heathens for Religion so in Hesychius and Phavorinus 58 Sect. 4. False worship is not Wil-worship Imposition of hands 59 Sect. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. The Athenians the most devout of all the Greeks 60 Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25. Festus's scorn fals on the Jews not on Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own not theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accusation Jesus put under the notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Festus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diatribists objections answered Superstition for Religion simply 62 Sect. 7. The method of search for the original notion of the word Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens Among them Superstition all one with Religion Plutarch of the Sabbatick rest Sacrificing children to Moloch was not to the true God Jer. 32. 35. Lev. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worship The glosses of the Etymologist and Phavorinus 66 Sect. 8. Superstition always ill but not always excess Probations from the use of words among heathens The Quaere of Divorce vindicated Superstitions not reprocht in the Romans by Polybius Ignorance not presently Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. The Israelites worshipping the Calfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitiosus noting excess 70 Sect. 9. The Diatribist's concession of the innocence of unprescribed ceremonies and so of all that is demanded His censure of himself and Chamier Authority in a Church to institute Ceremonies Abstaining from ceremonies because commanded by men or abused by Papists 77 Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections
antienter then that of Polycarp in the Martyrdome of Ignatius written by them which were present at it who setting down the day and time of his Coronation say they do it so precisely ut secundum tempus Martyrii coagregati communicemus athletae that assembling together on the Anniversarie of his Martyrdome they may communicate with his Martyrdome commemorate his sufferings and bless God for him c. These authorities may I hope be of some credit with him who can found arguments on passages in Aquinas and Amesius and if Apostles as equitably as Martyrs may thus be commemorated the Church of England I hope whatever become of the Papists may be vindicated from all Superstition or excess against the 4th Commandment And then when I have added 8 tly that the Jewes scrupulosity in observing their Sabbath so that they would not stand up to defend themselves in that day is none of the excesses we are guilty of and that this being by the Diatribist styled excess of Religion and that against the 4th Commandment and justly called Superstition there is no need of making any more species of that excess or forcing in all dedication of holy days into that place I shall not need look any more narrowly to spy out greater store of infirmities in that 3d Sect. Sect. 4. The Diatribist's method and caution in setting down the species of Superstition BUT because all the former methods were imperfect and unsufficient even before they were confuted to erect such a modelled notion of Superstition as would serve the Diatribists aimes he must now in his 4th Sect. become humble in stead of Magisterial implore the courteous Readers pardon if he be not so logically accurate to set down what he is resolved is not easie to discover all the kinds and wayes whereby this sin of Superstition is committed in particular And to what purpose all this modesty is designed will be easily guest viz. to leave the word Superstition in the clouds to involve in stead of explaining it that it may continue usefull to him as a mormo whensoever he hath a mind to affright men out of their obedience to the Church to which purpose it could not be so commodious if it were once defined or limited to one or any set number of more Commandments And though in the 10. following Sections he reckon up pretty store of species of it yet he must here before-hand make sure of a reserve protest his libertie to adde more whensoever he shall have need of them we shall saith he labour to express some of them as we find them held out by Divines and others where it seems Divines such as Amesius Vrsine Mr. Perkins c. have not held out enough but he must have a supply from others which are not Divines and it would be an odde question to be answered who those others are when the monuments of heathen authors Latine and Greck have been so severely disclaimed in his § 1. and then none but the judgement of Divines thought sit to be appealed to in this matter and § 14. when he hath completed a large catalogue he concludes with Lastly to adde no more intimating that there are still more to be added of which he will serve himself when he sees good What now follows in the 10. insuing Sections I shall resolvedly passe over though there be many things very fit to be noted in them partly because he promiseth they shall soon recurre again and partly because they belong to the other tracts that of Wil-worship and Festivals where sure we shall meet with them and partly because they have been spoken to already and besides some of them are the enumerating of those very species of Superstition which I have set down in that treatise as such And therefore so much after his Preface for his Prolegomena CHAP. IV. Of the Particular exceptions of the Diatribist to the Tract of Superstition Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt IAm now more immediately summoned and called into the lists by this Diatribist § 15. and the severall Sections of the Treatise of Superstition must be brought to a strict examination and I hope they will not be unable to bear it In my first § there is nothing disliked but onely that I will not acknowledge my self or our Church guilty before the trial and to that purpose I am told commonly those that are most Superstitious are most confident of their innocency and piety and no marvaile if they understand Superstition as the Dr. doth But to this I answer that I hope this his prudent Aphorisme is not simply convertible viz. That they which are most confident of their innocency and piety are most Superstitious for if it be I must not be so unkind to wish or so uncharitable to believe of the Diatribist that he hath a good conscience nor any longer rely on that Apostle that hath taught me Gods method of judging of us by the verdict of our own accusing or excusing conscience and so long t is possible that I may be free from that guilt though I am never so confident Mean while I that allow the Diatribist one species that of Negative Superstition for his portion have his leave to conclude from hence that this is the reason why he is so confident of his innocence As for the 2d part my understanding of the notion of the word Superstition in that Treatise if I cannot justifie it to be as good as Mr. C. his superstatutum I shall very much accuse my self and in the interim be comforted with his confession that if I have not erred in the notion of Superstition of which he is no competent judge being a party then both I and our Church for the Romish I shall not be so sollicitous are farre enough from this crime Sect. 2. The nature of the word Excess of fear among the Epicureans Superstitio from Super and sto not statuo Aquinas misreported THe next or 16th § considers the notion by me given of the Latine Superstitio Superstitum cultus and having yeelded it to be so defined by the heathens yet he cannot think that I will say that that this is the onely Superstition to be found in the world because I acknowledge an excessive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of it among the Heathens and other kinds also among Christians adding that some there are and they no mean ones that derive it from Super and sto or statuo as supra statutum worship instituted by men above the statute Law of God but he rather rests in the definition of the Schooles that it is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess which may extend to the other commandments whereas this limits it to the 2d. To all this I need no farther to reply but 1. That my 2d Sect. was not designed to give any complete definition of Superstition but to search how much was to be concluded from the Latine word as in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of the former speech must needs give me authority to interpret it in proportion thereto that considering all that he had seen of them peculiarly that altar to the unknown God he concluded them more Superstitious i. e. worshippers of more Gods then other folkes That the Athenians truely were so esteemed appears evidently by what was said in the Tr of Superstition § 11. and hath here formerly been added to that head and therefore that will very fitly be the notion of the word not too Superstitious but literally more Superstitious then others especially if it be remembred that the bare addition of the worship of the true God however unknown to them to their other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship of many Gods cannot be a new fault in them distinct from the other or a superaddition to the guilts of other men All which being considered it now appears 1. How far from truth it is which is here suggested that Pauls speech of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however rendred belongs both to their worshipping so many false Gods and to their ignorant worship of the true and to their vitious rites of worship when it clearly belongs but to one their worshipping the unknown God which others worshipt not 2. How far my words § 11. were mistaken or perverted by him 3. How far my interpretation hath been from opposing the text it self being the clear importance of the text considered with S. Pauls reason as the key by which to enter into the true meaning of it and lastly how far this is from any begging the question when I proved so largely whatsoever I said and when no answer is here offered to those proofs and yet if there were any need here have been added farther convincing confirmations of the same thing if yet they may deserve to be taken notice of And this is all that is in the least degree needfull to be said to this § 22. unless I yet adde that those words in the close of it cited from me that § 31. Superstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more then in the comparative are not very intelligible which they would surely have been to me at least if they had rightly reported my sense That which I said is no more then this that Superstitiosus by force of the termination osus may signifie an excess and that so Religiosus may also but what is that to the use of the word whether in the positive or the comparative when it is the bare rendring of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here it is which no way signifies thus Sect. 9. The Diatribist's concession of the innocence of unprescribed ceremonies and so of all that is demanded His censure of himself and Chamier Authority in a Church to institute Ceremonies Abstaining from ceremonies because commanded by men or abused by Papists THe next or 23d § is very brief but yet seems to me to be very considerable and that in such a degree that it might well make an end of this debate betwixt the Diatribist and me for having exactly set down a 2d. inconsequence by me noted and concluded to be such from the opening of the Greek and Latine words viz. that the use of ceremonies or rites in the worship of God if not distinctly prescribed by the example or precept of Christ should be called Superstition and for that condemned he answers no more but this I believe this is a mistake none that I know make such a consequence but rather thus that what rite or ceremonie soever is made a part of worship without such example or precept of Scripture is Superstitious and therefore condemned I shall not here indevour to perswade the Diatribist that he knows some who condemne uncommanded rites as Superstitious because Superstatutum such as kneeling at the Eucharist using the cross in baptisme bowing at the name of Jesus but taking him at his word I beseech him to tell me why then he undertook the confutation of the Tr. of Superstition which he must know contended no more then this being designed to this onely end the averting that envy and calumnie that was then frequently but unjustly cast upon our Church upon the account of ceremonies and which was since in the Tract of Festivals no farther applied then as that analogie would justly bear which was betwixt uncommanded rites and uncommanded days of worship betwixt unprescribed gestures and times both which are known to be but circumstances and accessories no essentiall parts or branches of worship This truely were very strange for him to be ignorant of As it is 't is the yielding me the whole cause and I have no more to contend for but onely peace and what by perfect analogie from one circumstance of worship to another will irrefragably be concluded from that which is here granted by him T is now pity that we that are thus suddenly pieced should ever fall out again Nay we are likely if words may be believed to be yet more firmly knit together and consolidated for § 24. in answer to the 3d. inconsequence noted by me that men on pretence and in the name of piety should abstain from some observances indifferent as Superstitious either because commanded by lawfull authority or abused by Papists he speaks clearly that it is a worse mistake and that he believes I cannot give an instance of one understanding Christian that ever did abstain from observances indifferent because commanded by lawfull authority but rather that they were thought not indifferent but obtruded on them as parts of worship and so likewise for the other that they have been used by Papists is not all but that by them they have been abused and counted parts of worship and may easily return to be so accounted by others But to this I must reply lest by silence I incur the guilt of scandal of having wronged others and of writing all that hath been written on this Theme without any adversary to provoke me to it First then I professe to be able to give instance of many that were baptized into our common faith and so were Christians how deeply understanding I pretend not to judge who have abstained from the use of ceremonies meerly upon this score because commanded by their Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors the King and Bishops by Canon Ecclesiastical This said they was laying more burthens on them then God had laid and so usurping on their Christian liberty And in stead of naming those men without their consent for that must now be the vilifying them the involving them under the Diatribists censure that they are not understanding Christians I shall name one on whom he may pass what judgement he shall please having full power to do it this very Diatribist himself p. 31. where 1. He hath these words If men may be Judges what are fit for number and wholesomeness every after comer will think himself as wise as he that went before till they have loaded the Christian
above the Iew. 2. That the learned Chamier hath well observed that there may be many mischiefs in a few ceremonies if the authority to institute them be in the Church or any man or men The former of these speeches is pretty home to the point in hand for if the objection to the number or wholesomness of ceremonies be this that men are judges of them as they always are when men command them then sure it is the power of the lawful magistrate for he is a man or men to command which is the ground of the quarrel and they that quarrel thus and abstain from indifferent ceremonies upon this score must abstain because commanded by lawfull authority As for example I suppose bowing when Jesus is named in the publike worship or when Christ or when the Holy Ghost to be in it self lawfull or indifferent because no where forbidden by God I suppose farther that being so this and a few other such ceremonies may very safely be used by a Christian though they were not commanded I now demand may a few namely three or four such ceremonies be lawfully prescribed or commanded by the Supreme power in any Church to all under that authority And may all under that authority safely observe such ceremonies so commanded If they may then men may be judges what ceremonies are fit both for number and wholesomeness which is contrary to the direct words of the Diatribist in the former part of this speech If they may not then it seems what was before lawfull and indifferent is now since it was commanded and by no other change become unlawfull which was the inconsequence I pointed at and it seems mistook not in thinking somebody it now seems this Diatribist to be the very person guilty of it But then the latter speech is as punctuall to it as could be well imagined and if the Diatribist have cited duely Chamier and he are both of this opinion For it being certain that nothing can be commanded by lawful authority unless the authority of instituting it be either in the Church or man or men it must necessarily follow upon the asserting of the many mischiefs in a few ceremonies if the authority to institute them be in the Church or man or men that there must be many mischiefs in their being commanded by lawfull authority then no understanding Christian can think it fit for him by observing such commands to be accessory to or guilty of the introducing those mischiefs so must abstain on that one account of the Churches exercising such an authority which was the very thing I deemed and noted to be so inconsequent Nay the very words of the Diatribist in this place when he charges me of mistake being these that they that abstain from indifferent observances do it because they were thought not indifferent but obtruded on them as parts of worship are either a calumnie against the Governors of our Church or else they assert what he disclaimes so solemnly For I shall demand Is his meaning this that the Governors of the Church thought the ceremonies simply necessary and not indifferent antecedently to the command of the Church i. e. necessary by the Divine Law though the Church had never commanded them If that be his meaning as seems most probable by what follows obtruded on them as parts of worship for all parts of worship are necessary by divine Law though never commanded by man then this is a direct calumnie against the Governors of the Church who never thought all ceremonies to be prescribed by God's Law and therefore prescribed them by Canon Ecclesiastical which argues that they esteemed them not as Divine but Humane Laws never obtruded them as parts of worship but as ceremonies for uniformity and decency and as usefull toward assisting inciting and expressing of piety outwardly But if his meaning be that being in themselves indifferent they became necessary and not indifferent by the intervening of the Churches command and so were obtruded on men as parts of worship as that may possibly signifie with him parts of obedience or duty to God by virtue of his command to obey our Superiors and if this were the thing disliked in the ceremonies prescribed by the Church then again t is evident that their being commanded by lawfull authority is the onely objection to them and ground of abstaining from them in the judgement of his Diatribist at the very point of time when he so solemnely disclaimes it So likewise may be said to his account of those things which are abstained from because they have been used by Papists This saith he is because they have been by them abused and counted parts of worship But truly I cannot with truth thus affirme of the Papists that any of the ceremonies which we use from them were ever by them accounted parts of worship but onely as usefull wholesome ceremonies appointed by the Church Of the difference between parts of worship and circumstances of time place gesture accessaries of worship I have spoken at large c. 2. § 3. And though hereafter § 28. this difference be fully consented to by the Diatribist in these words some rites and ceremonies of worship are rather called circumstances of worship time place gesture which are common adjuncts of Religious and Civil affaires then properly Religious much less to be accounted parts of worship yet by what hath here been said by him it appears that all his skill lyes in managing that one fallacie putting all ceremonies and institutions of the Church under that one ambiguous phrase uncommanded worship perswading himself or others that we introduce new parts of worship and so do contrary to God's command who hath set down the rule of worship i. e. prescribed all the parts and species of worship whereas he cannot but know that all that we say in asserting whether of ceremonies or Festivals is no more but this that each of these not as parts of worship but as decent attendants of it though not instituted by God have yet been lawfully and orderly appointed and observed by the Church of God in generall and are to us become matter of obligation by that means and as prescribed by the Governors of our particular Church to which our obedience is due and so that there is no degree of Superstition in us in doing that which is thus required of us nor in those that require it in laying this obligation upon us And so much for his animadversions on the three inconsequences from which if he would really and in earnest clear himself these debates were certainly concluded Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections What excess Divines mean by Superstition What St Augustine Obligation to performance without being parts of worship Observers of order more Religious more acceptable then others The reason why Jewish ceremonies are interdicted The Church of England sparing in ceremonies Ceremonies not foreshewing Christ lawful to be retained by Christians The abstinence
the two branches of the one proposition for which I contend are no way concerned in any part of his state of this question nor indeed any thing with the least probability suggested against either viz. 1. that a National Church planted by the Apostles or their successors may lawfully use a festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ and on it pray to and praise God in the solemn assembly preach out the word and Sacraments exhorting all good Christians to partake thereof and to lay aside their ordinary labours that they may be vacant for such holy exercises and 2. that when such a pious usage hath gained a reception either from the time of the first planting of the faith among us or however by immemorial custome all other Churches in the world for very many hundred years and for ought we can discern from the very Apostles practice concurring with us it ought not to be declaimed against as Antichristian or laid aside or covenanted against by this Diatribist or others persons not in but under authority upon no weight of solid resons but upon some causless suggestions that it is criminous under the head of Will-worship and Superstition This was so plainly set down before to be the whole matter in debate betwixt me and any gain-sayers that there was nothing left to the Diatribist but briefly to point at the weak part if there appeared to be any such in either branch of this proposition and having nothing from him to this purpose I shall now omit to take notice of the infirmities of which this discourse of his is as full as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected and hasten to his following §§ in hope of springing somewhat more pertinent to our controversie Sect. 9. The Reformation in this Kingdome No imperfection in it in point of Festivals The states joyning in it no disadvantage to the Church MY 10th § proceeded to some few considerations the adverting to which might render this change or abolition of the Christmas Festival more unreasonable As 1. that this observation was an undoubted part of that establishment which the Reformation in this kingdome enacted for us and that by act of Parliament and not only by Church Canon To this he answers two things 1. That the Reformation was not so full as the Reformers themselves could have wisht Never considering how far this is from being applicable to the point in hand For I shall demand Did all or any of the Reformers to whose piety and temper we ow our establishment ever expresse their wish that all Festivals particularly this of Christmasse should be abolished or did they not If it shall be said they did I then presse that the Record may be produced by which this hath been notified to the Diatribist But if he confesse they did not or offer no proof that they did then what is it to this matter of festivities wherein only our present debate is concerned if in other things of a quite different nature as that of bringing all notorious sinners to penance every Lent mentioned in the office for Ashwednesday they wisht and exprest their wish that the Reformation were more perfect The rule in law is seasonable to be here applied Exceptio firmat in non exceptis Their expressing their wish that other things might be more perfect gives us assurance that they wisht not any farther change in this particular of festivals then that which they made in the Romish Calendar This answer therefore had little of advantage for him and yet his only Reserve is that 2. this seems to grant that the Reformation was made by the State and not by the Church which now is pleaded for And I pray what is that to the disadvantage of the Church that the State joined with it in the Reformation confirming and establishing it by Act of Parliament or 2. why is that the fitter to be abolished which stands by Statute law as well as by Ecclesiastical Canon and Custome immemorial or 3. how doth the Parliaments confirming the Liturgie and therein the festivals inferre that this festival was not first introduced by the Church when it is most evident that the Festival was in the Church long before that Act of Parliament These indeed are all the answers we can have to an argument which seemed to have been of some force with a friend of Parliaments or established lawes and therefore we must content our selves with them Sect. 3. The Lutheran Churches accord in this Morney's wish The Helvetian confession Rivets custome of preaching on the day MY 2d consideration was that this and other feasts of Christ are retained in the reformed Lutheran Churches and where they are taken away wisht for by sober members as Ph Mornay Du Plessis and approved by the confessions of those Churches as the Helvetian and in other places the day of Christmas afforded the solemnity of a Sermon To this he answers that the Lutheran are not reputed the best reformed Churches nor by the Doctor he believes thought fit to be compared with England and so not fit precedents for our Reformation But sure he might have marked that the Lutheran Churches concurring with the English in this of Festivals t is no way to the disparaging of my argument that I do not compare the Lutheran Churches with that of England T is certainly sufficient if they and the Church of England together may be able to compare with all other reformed Churches which have cast out all festivals as superstitious or Antichristian And thus I shall without much insolence adventure to make the comparison As for the little regard he is pleased to give to such private persons wishes as that of Ph Morney Du Plessis I may reasonably reply that how fastidiously soever he reject it it may very well be allowed to keep the practice of the Church of France from being any example or precedent to us when the prime members of their own Church have exprest their dislikes of it And I pray why was not the Helvetian confession worth his taking notice of that was no bare wish of a private man but the approbation of a Church which Mr. Calvin thought fit to write to for their judgement and suffrage to his new erected model at Geneva As for the passage of giving Sermons to Christmas day I see it is mistaken by him and applied to as spoken of himself and such as he in their former practices and upon that misprision it is that he is so much concerned to have their prayers as good and as large as the Liturgies by the way if they be not much better and sure alwayes to be so why must the Liturgie be abolished whereas all this while I never thought of him or such as he which it seems kept fair with Christmas from whence I am in charity to believe they thought it not Superstition till they had an advantage of ejecting it and then made all speed to close with the
and commemorate Christ on that day What could passion or interest or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have suggested more unadvisedly then this His 2d dislike and exception is that having formerly founded times or dayes designed to publike worship on the equity of the 4th Commandment I should now devolve the observation of this festival to obedience to the lawes of the Church and so reduce it as a duty to the 5th Commandment and upon this as an especial advantage he is pleased to expatiate But the matter is clear enough and was so till he had taken pains to involve it The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for Gods service generally considered and this or that particular time That God should have some times assigned for his service is of the very law of Nature and so much of morality there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly sabbath in the 4 Commandment Nay farther the 4th Commandment being given to the Iewes for the observing one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set a part one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead And accordingly I suppose it instituted by the Apostles of Christ But then as among the Jewes beside the weekly sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many other times of festivity and fasting some appointed by God himself in the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others instituted by men and yet constantly observed by Gods people and accepted by God and some approved by Christ himself and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment though not by any force of that so now still under the Gospel nothing hinders but that the Church of God by the power left to and deposited with them may ordain Christian feasts and fasts and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek sons of the Church and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worship or spontaneity but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fift Commandment As for that which he addes in this matter that we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day of seven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it for where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment and t is visible what the consequence must be in affirming it even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of the fourth Commandment 2. It is no way pertinent to the matter in hand for supposing Christians allowed six daies for their own works t is yet visible that some of these six may by the free act of particular men be used or by the power of the Christian Church be set a part to Christian uses as well as some days were not only by God himself but by the Governors of the Jewes Judas Maccabeus and others set a part for the publike service of God in the old Testament at which time t is by all confest that the fourth Commandment was in force in all parts of it A second exception I shall note in this § p. 157. when upon these words of mine concerning the possible mistake of the day that that will be pardonable in those that verily think they are not mistaken and that in them that do performe the businesse of the day as compleatly on a mistaken day as on the true the excuse of blamelesse ignorance will wash away greater errors then this he presently replies Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists doctrine of venial sins and upon that occasion is put in minde of Bellarmines defence against the peril of idolatry in the Masse in case the bread be not transubstantiated And then he askes Can any ignorance be blamelesse against the Law of God or wash away any error without the blood of Christ But to this the answer is obvious and the fallacy presently discoverable For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable sins must not be presumed to exclude the blood of Christ those sins are pardonable under the Gospel for which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was paid and such are all sins that are reconcileable with true repentance or the sincerity of a regenerate state But then 2. I am no way assured that it is a sin so much as of ignorance to mistake in the day of Christs birth every mistake is not a sin but only that which is a breach of some law and therefore I suppose it is that the Diatribist was compelled to say Can any ignorance be blamelesse against a law of God But then I professe not to know any law of God against which it is a sin though but of ignorance to mistake that day for the annual day of Christs birth which really is not the day And I now desire to be informed of which of the ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Testament this is a breach When he tells me this I shall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section and answer his instance of so weighty consideration about the very day of the Jews passeover of which he acknowledge that the very day was as strictly commanded as the businesse it self and so the error must be an error against a law whereas he as certainly knowes that this day of Christs birth is by none so much as pretended to be so commanded What remains concerning Chemnitius's charge of Superstition on Papists observation of their holy daies is all answered before it be produced by this one consideration that Chemnitius as a Lutheran is by the Diatribist confest to allow this and other Festivals For then hath he granted all that I contend for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papists Sect. 15. Of riot Christian joyes no way contrary to our Festivals Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day Heathen customes cannot be objected Gods judgments vainly urged for arguments The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after Reformation of excesse without abolition of the Festival Attempt to reform previous to abolition The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals Cures for diseases excisions only for desperate spreading evils No cards on Christmas day as much strictnesse on Christmass not more sacredness then on the Lords day No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles Neither Superstition nor hypocrisie in abstaining from Cards on Christmas day WHat now followes in the 17th § and so on to the 27. is all to the head of
cards or dice on Christmas day and this must adde either to our superstition or hypocrisie our superstition if they be lawful in that they forbid them on that day that God hath not forbidden them Hypocrisie if they be unlawful in abstaining then and yet using them on ther days But we shall soon be extricated from the power of this Dilemma by affirming 1. that those sports used moderately as diversions and no way abused by our inordinacy are not by any argument that ever I met with proved to be toto genere or absolutely unlawful and so that they may be used for divertisement on other days and particularly on the following days of that Festivity and yet 2dly that they are no way necessary and so that no man offends that abstains from them on all other days and employs himself better constantly From whence it is necessarily consequent also that he that hath fed on the body and blood of Christ and consecrated himself in an extraordinary manner to commemorate the mysterie of our redemption on Christmas day and agreeably thereto desires to spend it so much more strictly then other dayes as not to admit those sports which are lawful on other days to divide any part of that can never be criminous in so doing As for any thing of riot but such is not all lawful divertisement on the following days he knowes they are no way pleaded for by me and if any be guilty of them as the shame thereof is due to the offenders not to the festival which is innocent and laudable so t is too well known that the Lords day it self hath not been secured from the same unhappy adherences And it might as well be charged on that that the heathens worshipt the Sun on that day and that revelling upon it are fitter for such heathen feasts then for Christians as the Diatribist could suggest in this place that the Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time that Christmas was and that the excesses of the following dayes are services fitter for the revels of Bacchus and Saturn or the birth day of Herod then for the festivity of a spiritual Saviour All this is true and equally granted by both parties and so hath no propriety or pertinency to the dispute between us Sect. 16. Christmas if of the same original with Easter certainly Apostolical However of the practice of the Primitive Church All rendring of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MY 27th § was introductory to a discourse more general to shew by what authority festivals in general and particularly this of Christmas pretends to stand in the Catholike Church which I acknowledged not to be by any institution of Christs but to have had the beginning from the Apostles or the succeeding Church To the view hereof he now proceeds and briefly sets to it to disprove each of these originals beginning first with that of the Apostles And of this he thinks he need say no more then to appeal to the same arguments which he had used against the Apostles institution of Easter § 6. viz. 1. the no mention of such institution in the Scripture 2. the expresse words of Socrates that neither Christ nor his Apostles commanded the feast of Easter to be observed But to both these it is certain that I ow no return having now paid it so punctually in the 4 h § where beside clear answers to the Diatribists arguments I added evidences undeniable that the feast of Easter was observed by the Apostles And I cannot doubt but they will be of force with him when he shall take leisure to weigh them And then if the case shall be acknowledged the same betwixt Easter Christmasse that of the resurrection this of the birth of Christ as the Diatribist seems to acknowledge in tendring no one argument more against the Apostolicalness of Christmass then he had before produced against the institution of Easter by them then it is evident my affirmation must ascend higher then it ever meant to have done and not proceed disjunctively that this feast of the nativity is derived either from the Apostles or the succeeding Church but leaving out the latter part of the partition fix upon the former that being yielded to have the same original with Easter it is certainly derived from the Apostles from whence it appears that of Easter is derived To which purpose we have already produced some evidences which may justly pretend to some force at least ad hominem to him that hath no more against this then against all other Christian festivals viz. those from the martyrdomes of Ignatius and Polycarp written by those that were present at them and so lived soon after the Apostles That of Polycarps recorded in that famous Epistle of the Church of Smyrna I have set down at large and made my inferences from it § § 33. and 34. of that treatise of Festivals To which I have here formerly added that other parallel testimony from the acts of Ignatius So that now I hope I may safely resume my former affirmation without all diffidence that other Festivals beside that of the weekly Lords day were derived to us some certainly from the Apostles others from the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles In one of which ranks though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity of Christ is to be placed yet because we have not those evidences of the fact which we have for Easter and others I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainties nor affirm more then what that treatise hath shewed out of the ancient Fathers that this feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity And against this I am sure neither Socrates nor my L. of Falkland who is joyned next to him hath suggested any thing then what was thus done by them must not in equity fare the worse for my adding the mention of a motive or incitement that might reasonably recommend it to them which is therefore presently styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew of wisdom as if all reasonable motives were to be blasted under that title as all uncommanded performances here are said to be by the express words of the 2d Commandment Col. 2. 23. But sure we have formerly spoken enough of this arguing Sect. 17. The Encaenia a religious feast instituted by the the Iewes and approved by Christ vindicated from all his exceptions Marriage feasts Religious feasts cannot be unlawful if civil be lawful The feast of Purim a religious feast THE 29th § proceeds to consider what I had said of the Encaenia among the Jewes the feast of dedication not instituted by God in the Law but in commemoration of the purging of the altar by Judas Maccabeus and yet this observed by the Jewes and approved by Christs presence at it Joh 10. 23. To this the Diatribist answers that there may be many mistakes in this And truly it matters not how many there may be as long as
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
otherwise then by refuting the media which have inferred it so must it be in me to reply to such offers of answer which can never signifie any thing as long as my premisses stand in force especially if it proceed by denying those things which this vindication hath undertaken to prove without offering answer as without the spirit of divination it could not to those proofs For example The Diatribist here begins with this affirmation that I have not proved that the universal Church of the first age hath observed any of the Festivals And I have here evidently proved that Easter was observed by Philip and Iohn the Apostle and from them received by the Asiaticks or Eastern Christians and so likewise by the Western from S. Peter and S. Paul and so sure there is no farther need of refuting this affirmation And the same might in like manner appear in each insuing step of his answer and the rule by which he is content to be judged applied exactly to the condemning him in this very business of the Easter Festivity which is of as much force as if it equally appeared of every other of the great Festivals But still this were to repeat what hath here been already said and vindicated from all his exceptions In stead whereof I shall only gather up what hath any thing of newes in it And 1. let me admire his candor when he will not stick to grant this rule to be good that whatever doctrine or practice hath the concordant attestation of the Churches of the Apostolical time while they were yet alive it was Apostolical but withall addes as if he had been too liberal that the negative is a surer rule to judge by as if indeed any predication could be surer then that which is identical Next his argument against the concordant attestation of the primitive ancients concerning Apostolical tradition drawn from Papias's affirmation of the Milennium had not I confesse formerly been produced but it falls out that I have elswhere sufficently cleared it Thirdly his citation p. 197. from the Pract. Cat. p. 181. that Christmas was not universally solemnized till about 400 years after Christ and after a little more to his advantage till at least the 400 years p. 201. is both as to the words and as to the sense very much misreported The place is ready to be seen and lies thus The authority by which this festival stands in the Church is that of the practice of the Primitive universal Church and this made appear 1. from the immemorial observation of it 2. from the ancient Fathers speaking of it as an ancient usage in the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even now given 3. by the testimonies not only of the author of the Constitutions ancient though not Apostolical but of Origen of Cyprian of Ammianus Marcellinus speaking of Iulian 1300 years since and mentioning the Epiphany as a known festival of the Church and so both that and Christmasse of a far greater antiquity then the time of Iulian. Lastly by the words of Chrysostome that though the particular day December 25. was not fixt at Antioch till his 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 and this a very competent authority when withall t is so probable that it may be more according to a rule of the Fathers That very ancient and general usages whose beginnings are unknown may be resolved to be of Apostolical institution or practice c. This I have thus transcribed from that place to demonstrate what fidelity there was in this citation not only in applying that to the Festivall which belonged peculiarly to that particular day Dec. 25. but also in affirming from me that it was not universally solemnized till about 400. yeares and till at least the 400. yeare which leaves it free to be of a dote yet later when I say t is so probable that it was of Apostolicall institution or practice that the feast of Epiphanie was spoken of as a known festivall long before that time and the feast of Innocents attending this of Christmas affirmed by Origen to be by the holy Fathers according to the will of God commanded to be for ever celebrated in the Church and onely added that it appears to be at least an Ecclesiasticall institution very early received over all the West and the farre greater part of Christendome and within 400. years universally solemnized What can be more visibly unjust then this or what heed can be given to testimonies thus transformed into shapes which the writer never dream'd of and yet from them conclusions deduced such as here follow in this place of the Diatribist that my rash zeale hath carried me beyond the bounds of Reason and Religion To which expression of his all that I have to say is 1. That my conclusion was inferred out of premisses not dictated by zeale 2 dy That it affix'd no censure on any person belonging onely to those who should be found guilty of it and so was wholly designed to ends of charity to reforme not to reproach any 3. That if there had been any thing of rash or bitter in it it might have admonisht the Diatribist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be so soon guilty of greater sharpness As it is I must onely inferre that it seemes the guilty person hath the priviledge of accusing and judging in any form of language and so I shall not be so unseasonable as to admonish him of the injustice of it at a time when it is so improbable he will reap profit by it There is now nothing behind but his fastidious reflexions upon three Quaestions which I had return'd to the Author of the 16 Quaeres But because I see he likes not the Quaestions in my termes and in his proposing of foure others inserts particulars wholly rejected by mee as that of parts of worship adding as it is propounded § 9. but I hope not by me so propounded of abuse to superstition and profaneness c. I shall be as little obliged to accept them in his termes or tempted by the nature of the task or by the probability of the success of it with this Diatribist to begin new desputes at this time It is not amiss that we shake hands for a while and commune each with his own heart in stillness And so I heartily take my leave of him The End ERRATA Page Line Read 1 38 so full 3 26 if we 12 3 species 14 10 whither with 18 22 without 24 29 superstitious 25 38 destructive 26 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 38 3 that without 39 8 in it 42 7 of other 45 11 dele to 48 13 rerumque  25 I shall 75 24 worships 80 34 of