for the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Vulg. Lat. and others must signifie an excess So much of that Section Section 23 24. The second Inconsequence he sayes is this That the use of Ceremonies or Rites in the Worship of God if not distinctly prescribed c. THis I said I believed was a mistake but rather thus That what Rite c. is made a part of Worship c. is superstitious Now sayes he This is brief p. 77. n. 1. but very considerable and might well make an end of this debate between the Diatribist and me 'T is the yielding me the whole cause and I have no more to contend for but onely peace n. 3. But then why did he say just now The question must be set not of Vncommanded Worship but of Ceremonies c. And he being certified of this my sense long ago why hath he contended thus long about nothing to violate that pretended peace Do I or any of our Divines say that Vncommanded Rites c. are superstitious unless they be made parts of Worship c. Yes he would perswade me that I know some who condemne uncommanded Rites as superstitious p. 77. n. 2. because super statutum such as kneeling at the Eucharist Cross in Baptisme c. Truly I can safely profess I know none that do condemn those as superstitious but that they conceived them to be made by some parts of Worship He should have done well to name some of them That he will by and by but first he askes Why then did he undertake the confutation of the Tract of Superstition which he must know intended no more then this c. But I believe he intended more than this in that Tract viz. to plead secretly for some Vncommanded Worship which he newly made the onely matter of contest between us Yet if he will needs know the reasons of my undertaking that Tract these they were 1. To vindicate the truth from his interpolutions and obscurations in Thesi of the full sense of the word Superstition 2. Because I saw he pleaded for Vncommanded Worship as well as Circumstances c. 3. Because in Hypothesi I saw he makes some of his Rites c. parts of Worship as his Festival in particular which yet elsewhere he calls but a Circumstance of Worship These were some of my reasons if I have any more he shall hear them anon But though I know none that condemne Vncommanded Rites or Ceremonies as superstitious c. yet he may know some p. 78. n. 5. Who have abstained from the use of some Ceremonies meerly upon this score because commanded by their Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors I fear this is as he calls such charges a calumny They were conscientious godly men and gave all due Honour and obedience to their Superiors in all Indifferent things and that they should abstain from some Ceremonies meerly upon this score because Commanded c. is to me incredible They might and did abstain from some Ceremonies as too many and burthensome but especially as they esteemed them to be made parts of Worship which they have I think proved some of them to be The Doctor himself condemns the number and burdensomeness of them and as made new sorts of Worship and so they are agreed and pity it is he and they should fall out again But he will break the peace what ever it cost him Instead of naming those men without their consent for that must now be the vilifying them c. as not understanding Christians in the Diatribist censure he will name one upon whom he may pass what judgement he please the Diatribist himself p. 31. Where first he hath these words If men may judge what are fit for number and wholesomness every after-comer may think himself as wise as he that went before till they have loaded the Christian above the Jew 2. That the Learned Chamier c. How will he hence prove his calumny against me and learned Chamier glad I am of so good company Why thus If the objection be because men are Judges of the number c. as they are when they command then they that abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies upon this score most abstain because commanded by lawful Authority Oh the Doctors conscience Do any men abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies it is from Uncommanded Worship at least as they suppose He hath therefore varied the question And if he had but looked back to the former page of mine p. 29. he had found that which might have silenced all this vain and false discourse There I say If men or any number of men may be competent Judges in the Worship of God in the Worship not in the Circumstances of Worship will not the wisdom and wit of man expatiate here and grow wanton But if we extend it to his Ceremonies are not my words every way true Does not long experience of all ages make it evident that the Wisdome and Wit of men hath herein grown wanton Let the Church of Rome be the instance have not they loaded the Christian above the Jew and the * See p. 38. Greek Church as much And I retort it upon the Doctor If the Judges of Ceremonies for number and wholesomness have such large unquestionable Authority to appoint what Ceremonies they shall judge most useful most for edification and most agreeable to the analogy of faith As he asserts they have of Fest s 9. Then the Judges of the next age having the very same power with their predecessors may add as many more and the next after them as many more as they shall think useful to those ends till they have made the number great and burthen intollerable This consequence is unavoidable upon his Antecedent It therefore concerns him as well as me to expedite himself out of this snare How shall this be done to free us both I conceive one of these wayes 1. That the power of the Church reaches onely to Circumstances of Worship respecting Order and Decency and then as any Wise-man can easily determine them by the Light of Reason as Time Place Gesture in Worship so they will be very Few and cannot well be Multiplied being the same or like in all ages of the Church And this I think is most suitable to the Simplicity of Gospel Worship 2. Or else that if the Church take upon her to appoint new Ceremonies above what the Scripture holds out she makes them parts of Worship as the Church of Rome does all her Ceremonies and some did some of ours which is unlawful And this was the opinion of those who abstained from our Ceremonies that they were made parts of Worship and therefore unlawful These things satisfie me If they do not please the Doctor let him take his own way to expedite himself Sure if he were but constant to himself and did not confound Circumstances and Ceremonies putting one for another as if they were the same he might remember
34. The placing of more vertue in some things then either naturally or by the Rule of the word or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church may be thought c. UPon this principle of the Doctor I made an Assumption not onely of Romish Ceremonies unfit c. but of all superadded parts of Worship what ever p. 87. n. 11. They do place more vertue in them then either naturally belongs to them or by the Rule of the word ergo they are superstious This argument the Doctor thinks best to wave lest his Ceremonies he pleads for should be suspected or concluded superstitious because he places that vertue in them which neither naturally nor by the Rule of the word belongs to them as hath been shewed All that he pleases to take notice of is to answer my question What he meant to adde to his disjunction or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church thereupon I asked Whether the Church after the Apostles had power to put vertue into things which they had not either naturally or by the Rule of Gods word He answers I never thought any such thing Truly he that reads the words where these three are put together and knowes the Doctors Good-will to the power of the Church would easily take the meaning to be as I have exprest it That the Church hath power to put some vertue into things which neither nature nor God hath put into them For he makes the Institutions of the Church to be almost if not altogether Divine her Authority equal and the same with that of the Apostles confest to be Divine and seemes to joyn with and approve of the phrases of Romanists speaking of the power of the Church I shall instance in some particulars In this Section where now we are n. 4. he alledges a Testimony of Pope Leo p. 83. n. 4. Divinarum reverentia Sanctionum c. and renders it thus The reverence of Divine i.e. Ecclesiastical Sanctions hath always this priviledge c. We plain simple Protestants would have thought by Divine Sanctions he had meant the Institutions of Christ and his Apostles which are truly Divine but the Doctor understood the language of the Beast better than we do The Divine that is the Ecclesiastical Sanctions Again when Aquinas was cited as saying Worship is vitiated by Superfluity Ad p. 50. n. 5.6 when ought is assumed which neither by Divine nor Ecclesiastical appointment belongs to the glory of God c. He stops my mouth with this That the Superfluity of it consists not in being supperadded to Gods commands onely but to the Churches appointment also c. Where he seems to me to close with Aquinas that the Churches appointments of Worship are equal with Gods And once more to take it in here in this so fit a place and pass it lightly hereafter citing a testimony from Salmeron the Jesuite Omnis ritus colendi Deum c. Infra ad p. 147. n. 24. Every Rite of worshipping God that is not delivered from God nor from the Holy Ghost by the Church but is invented by the will of man is superstitions Leave but out those words by the Church and Salmeron speaks as full for us as we could desire But does the Doctor boggle at those words not at all but thus besets me where it seemes that which is delivered by the Church being by him supposed to be from the holy Ghost doth in no degree fall under this censure and then the Diatribist is free to make his best advantage of this citation What advantage I shall make of this he shall hear anon I make this onely at present that the Doctor will easily favour a Romish Gloss against the truth and could finde in his heart to believe with them that the power of the Church is Divine Some other such passages we may meet again hereafter Sect. 35.36 The Nimiety must be an excess of fear or being afraid of God when we need not c. TO these 2. Sections the Doctor sayes not one word but leaps to Sect. 37. Where some things were needful to have been considered by him I shall briefly remind him of them First p. 87. n An excess of fear or being afraid of God when we need not is granted a Nimiety a culpable excess this might be called Superstition under this notion of Nimiety They are his words in his 46. and 47. Sections of Superstition Now hence how justly have I inferred 1. That Superstition is an excess 2. That this is not the Worshipping of Daemons then Superstition is larger then he is willing to make it 3. That a needless which I call slavish fear of God is an excess and Superstition against the first Commandment All which the Doctor hath laboured to deny and is now confuted by his own pen. Another thing deserv'd his notice That I say Sect. 35. In matter of Worship it is a Nimiety and excess to do what God hath not commanded To which he sayes just nothing And then again when he said That this way of dogmatizing c. is the speciall and onely kinde of Superstition which he believes any Protestants to be guilty of I said this was a great mistake for himself hath granted many more kindes of Superstition as those newly named placing vertue in things c. An excess of fear c. and I may adde all men-devised Worship new kindes and sorts of Worship appointed by men c. Happy were it for many Protestants and for the Doctor himself if either there were no Superstition but worshipping of Daemons amongst Christians or none but Dogmatizing among Protestants for then his Ceremonies and Festivals might very well hope to escape But besides all those named there is yet another and that is in the next considered Sect. 37 38 39 And now we are come to another consideration of the last way that he supposes may be called Superstition that is because men place Holiness in some observances c. HEre he said The onely inquiry will be by whom and how far any thing is thus separated by Christ or the Apostles c. To which I answered He tells us here p. 87. n. 12. by whom the separation is made but not a word how far or in what difference a thing separated is made holy by the several Authors whether onely gradual or specifical c. To which he returnes not a word of answer which yet is a thing of very great concernment That we may know what degree or kinde of Holiness we put upon things So himself said The way to discern whether we exceed and place more Holiness then is due to them is to account them Holy in a degree proportionable to the Authority of him that separated them This is a blind we should know what is the degree of Holiness proportionable to every one of their Authorities else we may place as much Holiness in the institutions of a private man or a
worship The vulg Latine and others call it Superstition Ambr. calls it Sacriledge But the Doctor leaves out the foregoing words where he says they are the precepts and doctrines not of God but of men As I cited it above ad p. 109. n. 4. As also the following words why he called it Sacriledge because what is against the Authour the Authority of God is invented with a Sacrilegious minde Will the Doctor grant all this and yet say they offended in this onely that the will worship and humility were not what they pretended to be Let him go on to maintain himself by begging For Theodoret the reason if he will needs have it why I cited his sense of the word amongst the Latine Authours was because I found it cited by a learned Divine in Latine But what sayes the Doctor to his Interpretation First he fairly rejects his sense as not pretending that all either Greek or Latine concurred with him in this sense This is too favourably spoken for himself for he might more truly have said That few either Greek or Latine concurred with him I am sure none of our own Divines do and therfore he is very glad of the company of Bellarmine n. 14. and Salmeron n. 21. and whether any more I know not But this he says he is sure of p. 145. n. 19. That it 's not the uncommandedness of the worship that he findes fault with but first their teaching those for Gods commands which are their own that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their introducing their own ordinances their unseasonable Judaical doctrine 2. The bare shew of Piety and humility c. But I doubt the Doctor strains his conscience in this gloss for first I observe that Theodoret did not understand the Gnostick Abstinences but Judaical unseasonable doctrines yet the Doctor will needs have it meant of them and hath not one Interpreter for his notion that I can finde 2. That the Doctor interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Gods commands which most properly signifies the contrary their own doctrine or Ordinances And yet he sayes By his conclusion it 's evident that the Abstinences without the doctrines would not have been deemed by him reproveable This runs upon the former false supposition That these Abstinences had no fault but onely that they were held out as Commandments of God When as we have proved that they were sinful because they were made Religious and parts of Worship But enough of this afore The Ancient Fathers then are not for him but rather against him he must now seek for assistance from some Modern Authors not amongst our own or forraign Protestant Divines they are all against him To Papists then he must go Bellarmine he hath closed with above as one whose authority were alone considerable enough if there were not some others n. 14. But he is not alone Salmeron another Jesuite hath the very same notions of this text as if the Doctor had learned his Interpretation from him p. 146. n. 21. this learned Jesuite renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by Speciem that might possibly signifie a bare shew but by Specimen which is more some real evidence of Wisdom which sense the Doctor hath oftentimes renounced yet fain would have it so 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes the Jesuite signifies cultum spontaneum sive voluntariam Religionem pro arbitrio cujusvis abstinendi à cibis just so the Doctor only with this difference that the Doctor takes in the Gnostick Abstinence from marriage also which Salmeron thought not of 3. Alluding by this word to the voluntary oblations of the Law called Nedaboth Free will offerings How sweetly all correspond n. 22. But yet Salmeron is not thorow-paced with the Doctor For Salmeron conceives the words to allude to ver 18. In voluntary humility and worship c. And so goes along with Estius and others in that mistake Truly if Salmeron take the words in allusion to the 18 ver he confutes his own Interpretation of this 23. ver For surely that Worship of Angels and Impious humility is nothing of time with the Free will offerings And I rather take him and Estius to be in the right in this allusion then in his former Interpretation with the Doctor upon that reason But they will differ yet further unless the Doctor will turn Papist in the Divine Authority of the Church in that which follows p. 147. n. 24. Omnis ritus c. Every rite of Worshipping God that is not delivered from God but is invented by the will of man is superstitious I never said so much of every rite if rite signifie a circumstance of worship or a ceremony if not made a part of Worship But will the Doctor say Amen to this of Salmeron I much fear it He will rather evade and tell me I leave out some of Salmerons words Not delivered from God nor the Spirit of God by the Church I did so but not to conceal them for I would ask the Doctor whether he agrees with Salmeron in this notion That what is delivered by the Church is from the holy Ghost i. e. is of Divine Authority If he do not why does he cite it seeing it is as false to him as to me And yet I see a reason for this it would serve to blinde his Reader and to jear me for thus he sayes Where it seemes that which is delivered by the Church being by him supposed to be from the holy Ghost doth in no degree fall under this censure and then the Diatribist hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation And so would the Doctor suppose and say too if it were not for open shame that the Traditions of the Church are from the holy Ghost and so not superstitious But of this afore and anon again ad p. 162.10 As for Estius he sayes indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here taken for Species in genere sive vera sive falsa but yet addes licet verificatio fiat pro specie imagine falsa And he cannot take it otherwise in his sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is an affected and fained Religion or Worship and an affected and fained humility joyned to an affected Religion And now the Doctor hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation of Estius n. 26. Whether Augustine and Thomas gave him authority to pretend their accord with him let them agree among themselves and the Doctor with them Yet that which the Doctor cites from August Non sit Religio c. Let not our Religion be placed in our fantasmes c. is little for his advantage for sure the Church of Rome and our Doctor with her doth place much Religion in her own fantasmes p. 148. n. 27. And yet we have the Doctors full consent to this That all fictitious false worship is to be avoided c. If I list to
which is not at least openly to plead for will worship but will-rites ceremonies circumstances of Worship But just it is that they which forget the truth should forget themselves Sect. 19. Another reason is that among the Jewes c. IN this Section p. 160. n. 3. the Doctor plainly confesses that his designe in his former Tract of VVill-worship was not to plead for any new kinde or parts of VVorship but to justifie the use of uncommanded ceremonies and circumstances and such are dayes of VVorship c. And I propound the question not about a rite or circumstance or degree of commanded worship but of worship it self c. Who would not think we were both agreed But then I ask why hath the Doctor many times asserted that I must and do state the question of uncommanded rites and circumstances when I profess oft to the contrary that the question is not about a rite or circumstaace of worship c. It may be said where 's then the difference n. 4. VVhy says the Doctor should he mispend and lavish out his pains delight in this impertinent severity arraign and triumph over a poor innocent Tract that never attempted in the least to bring any new kinde of worship into the Church I shall shew briefly wherein we differ 1. The Doctor confounds rites and ceremonies with circumstances of Worship sure I am amongst the Jewes So with Papists Ritus colendi Deum Salmeron supra all their Ceremonies were parts of Worship though all circumstances were not hereupon some Divines have thought and said any ceremony significant is eo nomine made a part of Worship 2. It does appear and will more hereafter that the Doctor does maintain some VVill-worship to be good and lawful that is will-devised worship not circumstances of Worship onely And this was the cause of my undertaking to confute that Tract of his and I hope I have not to others at least mispent and lavisht out my time and pains As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 162. n. 10 something hath been said above I shall adde onely this that at first it signified the Divine law onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never being used for Ecclesiastical but in process of time the Ecclesiastical Canons were graced with that title and the usurpation of more power to the Church then was meet in matter of doctrine and worship brought in by this misapplication much Suporstition because the Authority of the Church was held Divine by the Spirit of God infallibly guiding her as Papists now speak Divinarum Sanctionum that is Ecclesiasticall said the Doctor p. 83. n. 4. in Englishing the words of Pope Leo But the Doctor wisely waves the defence of those words of his we may justly conclude those actions justifiable because not prohibited and not onely so but also acceptable and and the more acceptable for this voluntariness I answered in this Section in VVorship it will not justifie a man that it is not forbidden in particular but rather that it is condemned because it is not commanded To which I now adde that the Doctor deludes us by general termes actions performances c. when he should say worship is justifiable because not prohibited and not onely so but more acceptable for the voluntariness And being by me pointed to this mistake he sayes nothing to it Sect. 20.21 A third ground of the abuse of the word c. I Said the 18. and 23. verses of Col. 2. might easily be reconciled the one respecting a new devised Worship the other the reviving an old out-dated Worship p. 163. n. 2. To this he sayes The worship of Angels in the 18. verse is much more then will-worship in the Diatribist notion of it for uncommanded will devised worship pronounced unlawful because not commanded but Angel worship is forbidden Enough hath been said of the difference of uncommanded and forbidden worship above Heathenish forbidden and so uncommanded worship his own words p. 157. n. 7. I adde now to the present answer first If Angel VVorship be forbidden I hope that will imply it is not commanded and upon that notion was unlawfull that it was a will-devised worship but more because it was forbidden by the first Commandment 2. So say I of these abstinences they were both not commanded but will-devised worship and also forbidden by the second Commandment For I cannot be flouted out of that answer 3. Let it be observed that the Doctor plainly justifies uncommanded worship devised by the will of man making any worship lawful that is not forbidden whereas as hath oft been said the uncommandedness of worship makes it sinful and false all worship being indeed forbidden that is not commanded by God n. 8. And yet the Doctor sayes the fault of Angel worship results from the unlawfulness of the * See my 23. s Of VVill-w matter which is forbidden in the first Commandment not from the voluntariness or uncommandedness of it This fallacy he would often put upon us to make the fault lie upon one when it lies upon both 1. That it is not commanded 2. That it is forbidden that Worship which is not commanded being ever forbidden I cited words from Maimonides brought by himself and seeing no more cited by him I thought fit to make use of it against him The words are general n. 3. That the errour that brought in the greatest part of Idolatry was that men conceived and taught that vain Worships and Superstitions were the will and pleasure of God Here the Doctor demands what I mean by vain Worships n. 4. doth he mean bare will devised Worship uncommanded which have no other crime in them but their uncommandedness I answer I do mean will devised uncommanded Worship but I do not say it hath no other crime then the uncommandedness for I know it hath another fault that it is forbidden And that thus the Affirmative part is God must be Worshipt onely with his own Worship then all will devised Worship is ill because it is not commanded The Negative part is No man must prescribe Worship to God then all will devised Worship is forbidden should I teach the Doctor these principles And these were the faults as of Angel Worship so of those Abstinences taught as Worship and of any will devised Worship what ever What confusion what injustice is in this If Clemens did misapply and confound these two texts v. 18. and 23. p. 165. n. 6. he was cited by himself proved what I intended that he thought them both as one I argued ad hominem there rather then ad rem But see how this great Admirer of the Fathers can throw them by when they do not please him or fit his new notions I need not pretend his reading of the text was true but his Interpretation I may justifie that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Humility in the 18. verse he understood the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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-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
a Religious Feast Truly he must be very partial whom this will convince All these may be found in a civil Feast A day of rest from ordinary labours An assembly at the Common Halls or places of meeting or places of the vulgars recreations A day of Feasting and gladness c. Onely one thing the Doctor would insinuate which certainly was not at Shuphan portions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as in a Sacrifical Feast Which Sacrifices might be onely at Jerusalem This he did to make it seem a Religious Feast which had it been done would not make the Feast Religious as was said above 2. If it was a Religious Feast others answer Mordecai was a Prophet and so directed by God to make it so which the Doctors Festival wants If that Feast of Purim had not such Divine Authority and yet made a Religious Feast as the Doctor will needs have it I dare still say they went beyond their commission and the Doctor shall justifie my assertion who condemnes all new sorts of Worship as unlawful Concerning the Institution of the Lords-day to be Divine whether by Christ himself or the Apostles enough hath been said in another place and I shall not renew that debate at this time And how odious the frequent comparisons if not preferment of his Festivals with the Lords-day were hath been manifested above The Doctor cannot yet forbear but he must either level the Lords-day to his Festival or advance his Festivals into the same Chair of Estate with the Lords-day for thus he says p. 284. n. 5. He teaches his Catechumene thus from Acts 20.7 That the Lords day was the time so early set apart to the Lords Supper and such holy duties and for collections Pract. cat 2. ed. p. 273. The parallel that I set betwixt the Lords-day and Christmas was onely 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 immediately from the Apostles Now 1. These last words spoil his parallel that the Lords-day came immediately from the Apostles and that as an Institution Divine whereas his Festival came not at all from any Institution of the Apostles but from the usage of the succeeding Church 2. That the Lords-day had a law to found it on the fourth Commandment for one day of seven of Divine appointment as was shewed above and needed onely a Divine designation which was done by Christ or his Apostles but his Festival had no law to found it on but rather a prohibition if made a part of Worship But yet the Doctor goes on 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 lawfull yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former Here are misadventures enough for so few lines 1. He now secretly waves the Apostles Institution of the Lords-day and brings it to their usage that so it might be equal to his Festival an usage onely 2. Then he would have it supposed for he is excellent at suppositions that will not be granted him that the usage of the Apostles will make any thing Divine which is most unreasonable unless he will again recal and establish as Divine the old Sabbath and other Jewish Ceremonies 3. He hath much ado to forbear to say The usage of the succeeding Church must be Divine also next to that and lawful and obligatory almost as much as that of the Apostles as well though not in so high a degree 4. If the Authority for instituting of the Lords-day and his Festivals be the same as he hath asserted often and both derived from the Apostles then either the usages and Festivals of the succeeding Church are Divine or those of the Apostles are but humane and Ecclesiastical And then the usages of the succeeding Church are not onely lawful and obligatory as well as those of the Apostles but as much and in as high a degree also the Authority being the same But the Doctor is engaged and cannot fairly go back that the Lords-day is of Apostolical Institution and their Institution also Divine and does not that carry in it Divine prescrition or Law He will help himself by a distinction n. 6.284 If by institution be meant giving law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition n. 7. But 't is possible that Institution of the day by the Apostles may signifie that the Apostles practice in assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an Institution or Law with the succeeding Church though the Apostles gave no law for it or no such law appears from them Never I think was it heard that an Apostolical usage was called by the name of an Apostolical Institution Or that the Apostles practice was ground sufficient to make an Institution or Law to the succeeding Church Yes sayes he n. 8. The Aposiles examples are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law and in this sense I consent to the Diatribist that their Institutions carry in them Divine prescription or a Law But I shall not thank him for this consent and shall enter my discent against this last proposition That the Apostles examples c. He should have instanced in some such usages onely that carry in them a Divine Law and have no other grounds of Scripture to import a Divine Institution And if such usages carry in them a Divine Law why hath he not spoken out and told us that his Festivals being derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church are Divine Institutions and not onely Apostolical usages Yet he growes confident to demand this as granted n. 9. 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 He means as well as the Lords-day This this is the Helena the Doctor so contends for to stablish by Tradition that which cannot be proved from Scripture But I would say 1. There are not many things so derived to us from the Apostles through all ages except the Lords-day and Infant Baptisme though this latter hath not in Scripture Apostolical practice as the former hath But had not both of them sufficient grounds in Scripture to infer a Divine Institution Infants communicating in the Lords Supper continued six hundred years in the Church sayes Dr. Morton Appeal l. 2. c. 13. s 3. I for my part should not be much perswaded by a meer Apostolical usage through many ages from the Apostles themselves For it s known the Apostles
of worshipping God that is not delivered from God nor from the holy Ghost by the Church but is invented by the will of man is superstitious Now if we take out but those words by the Church which is the very question betwixt them and Protestant Divines betwixt the Doctor and me whether the Church hath such authority to institute Ceremonies unless the Doctor will agree with them that the Institutions of the Church are from the Holy Ghost and Divine which yet he hath not asserted though he comes very near it as we shall hear below the former part of those words will conclude him guilty of Superstition in the judgement of a Jesuite Every Rite of worshipping God that is not delivered from God but invented by the will of man is superstitious Let the Doctor himself then state the question p. 99. n. 5. The controversie belongs onely to the Circumstances of time place gesture of the Churches appointing or voluntary observing thus he does it p. 85. n. 7. Whether every devised Rite or Ceremony not commanded by God be superstitious The affirmative whereof a Jesuite hath asserted for me and unless the Doctor equivocate in the words Ceremony or Rite and say he understands it of a Circumstance onely he cannot possibly escape the guilt of Superstition And this I foresee will be the onely Loop-hole whereout he will creep either making all Ceremonies but Circumstances of worship or all Circumstances of worship to be Ceremonies partly because it 's true that some in themselves considered Circumstances were by God made also Ceremonies or part of their Ceremonial worship as the Temple and Festivals and partly because I finde him thus evading hereafter p. 87. n. 13. The time or place when instituted by God himself is as truly a Circumstance of worship as when instituted by man c. Of which more in it's place at present I say Time and Place in their own nature are but meer Circumstances it 's the Institution of God that makes them Ceremonies or Ceremonial worship but I think the Doctor will not say so of the Institutions of the Church or if he do he will be self-confuted grant them that some Ceremonies are also Circumstances of worship yet are not all Circumstances also Ceremonies which they must be if the Doctor take them both for the same thing and this discovers his Ambiguities Equivocation and confusion in the several terms by him used of Rites Ceremonies Circumstances as Synonyma's in this discourse A second miscarriage here is that he takes for granted by his Adversaries That the use of Ceremonies when they are Significative may be allowed among Christians For so he sayes p. 7. n. 5. If the Disputers will but yield this that even when they are significative the use of Ceremonies may be allowed among Christians I shall then give my vote that they be paucae salubres c. Which he knows or may know they peremptorily deny except in such cases as I expressed sect 29. of Superstition To which the Doctor sayes just nothing having so fair an occasion offered him And if he take the word Ceremony for a Rite of worshipping God that is in the ordinary language of Divines for a part of worship as any one instituted by men will prove a Nimiety Excess and Superstition and not the multitude onely as he often asserts so in that notion by a part of worship himself hath renounced every Ceremony of mans devising and adding 3. n. 6. By granting they ought to be few one would think he granted there may be too many Ceremonies in a Church in Religion and then an excess in Religion and so the observers too Religious No sayes be this is no way a yielding a possibility that a man may be too Religious but when too many Ceremonies are accompanied with inward neglects there is not too much but too little Religion c. And why not both too much Religion in multitude of Ceremonies contrary to the Simplicity of Gospel worship too little in the neglect of inward duties certain it is those many Ceremonies are made Religious and are used in Religion the worship of God therefore the observers are too Religious and there may be and is an excess in Religion as his insectile Animals have too many legs but too little blood and so no calumnie proved For for want of a distinction he hides himself in equivocal termes in one sense he cannot be too Religious in another he may 1. To which purpose p. 8. n. 1. I gave a double distinction which he calls rather a perplexing then clearing the way I wonder with what eyes the Doctor looks upon other mens distinctions do's it not seem a paradox that a man may be too Religious in his Service of God to whom all is due needs it not an explication or distinction to clear it Did not the great School-man distinguish upon this proposition That Superstition is an excess in Religion Is not my first the same with his at least in sense A man cannot give God more worship then he deserves but he may give him more then he requires and his Will is the Rule of our worship But he excepts The two last members of both his distinctions are the same so too much a Tautology n. 2. and that is a Nimietie The Doctor was disposed to be merry and to shew his wit but sure there 's no great wisdom in this exception For 1. Are not both the distinctions true in themselves considered assunder if the former parts of them be distinct and not the same as they are not the distinctions are distinct and clear enough 2. The second proceeds by way of gradation upon the former that worship which God requires is either natural and there a man can hardly be too Religious or Instituted and there a man doing more then God requires may be too Religious that is In uncommanded worship the least addition of worship is too much and such a man may be said to be too Religious which are my words is not this plain enough The third and fourth number are spoken to already The next exception is His difference betwixt natural and instituted worship p. 9. n. 5. in this respect of Nimietie is perfectly vain and useless c. I pray why so is there not a difference between Natural and Instituted worship As also in respect of Nimietie that there can be no excess or very rarely in natural worship as in love filial fear trust in God c. but in Instituted there may a man may adde worship of his own to that which is commanded by God But his exceptions are useless and needless being but a strife of words First he sayes n. 6. Prayer is as properly a branch of natural worship as love or fear or trust being first inseparable from trust 2. A necessary and natural means of acknowledging Gods fulness and our wants 3. Containing under it thansgiving
32. and just now that they were interdicted Christians p. 84. n. 5. n. 8. he would not and to the last first in asking the question I beg the question which is sayes he whether every devised Rite or Ceremony not commanded of God be superstitious No such matter the question is of Vncommanded Worship not of Circumstances of Worship no nor of Rites and Ceremonies if not made parts of Worship And is it probable that the Apostle would cry down the old Ceremonies appointed by God and parts of Worship and give them leave to set up new ones of their own Head To the former part of a Jewes observing a Jewish Ceremony c. he answers as confidently by a question n. 8. What thinks be of the abstinence from strangled and blood a Jewish Ceremony and observed by Christians yet not blamed as Superstitious I say this first as it was observed by Christians so it was ordered by the Apostles who might do more then any Jew or Christian 2. It was not made now a part of Worship as before it was but onely to prevent a scandal to the weaker Jews which is evident by this besides other reasons that after the Jewes were better instructed or hardened the custome ceased And if the Doctor had a mind to plead for a Ceremony he might better have pleaded for continuance of this both for the Antiquity of it before the Law under the Law and under the first plantation of the Gospel observed by Christians many ages says the Doctor and also for the Authority of it from the Apostles themselves He cannot produce so much for his beloved Festival His other instance of the old Sabbath is just the same He hath the practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who continued the observation of it with the Lords day for some hundreds of years But I would say further 1. The Apostles did not observe the Sabbath day as now a part of Worship as afore but to take occasion to preach the Gospel at their Assemblies which they could not have on other dayes 2. The following Churches finding it in being amongst the Jewes continued it a while to gratifie them 3. If they continued it as a part of worship I would ask the Doctor whether they did well or he would justifie them seeing it was before annul'd and interdicted as he sayes 4. I must profess there is much more to be said for the observation of the old Sabbath by the Jewish Sabbatarians than can be said for any of the Doctors Festivals the Antiquity of it the Authority of it the Apostolical practice sayes the Doctor and the Churches observation of it for many ages clearly manifested in stories Whereas the Festivals especially his darling Christmas have no Apostolical Authority or Practice nor of the two first Ages of the Church that can be made appear I leave these to his consideration The 32. Section of mine p. 86. n. 9. he overlooks most of it that most concern'd him to have answered about his number of wholsome Ceremonies of the efficacy put in them by some to procure grace c. and who shall be the Judge of their number and wholesomness All this is waved but a flaw or fault is found in my words which takes him wholly up that I affirm him to say If Ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholsom there cannot be too much of them Truly he that reades the words in his 41. Section might easily be mistaken if he attend not heedfully to them thus they are Ceremonies must be few and wholsom yet if they be wholsom not onely negatively but positively not onely harmless but tending to edification for so salubrity imports then there will be little reason to accuse them of excess Would not a man at first sight take the meaning to be that which I have given If they be wholesom negatively harmlesly though not onely so but positively and tending to edification c. especially if he eyed not the parenthesis following which all know may be left out and the sense be still entire But I shall freely acknowledge my Inadvertency and beg his pardon I am sure he needs mine much more in mislating of the question so often I say not willingly as if the controversie was only Whether every Rite or Circumstance not commanded by God be Superstition n. 7. when he knows it is about Uncommanded Worship Sect. 33. This question of a competent Judge c. THe Sophisme charged upon me n. 10. will rather reflect upon himself I said what is Superstition but folly and vanity in the Worship of God In vain do they Worship me c. This is says he a parologisme supposing things to be convertible which are not every Superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the Worship of God is not Superstition Duplex superstitio perniciosa vana seu superflua Filuc Trat 24. c. 2. Foolish and vain Ceremonies or superstitious But that 's the Doctors mistake I dare maintain that every folly and vainty in the Worship of God is Superstition which I prove from the definition of Superstition Every excess in Religion of mens devising is folly as proceeding from mans Wisdom which is folly with God and vanity as wanting ground of it's performance but every folly and vanity in Religion of mens devising is an excess in Religion ergo And from his own words In this case of too many Ceremonies though any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault yet this not the fault of Superstition but of folly and vanity He was speaking of store of inordinable unfit Ceremonies in the Church of Rome are not they Superstitious yet are they also foolish and vain And when he sayes any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault how will he reconcile this with what he had said before If the excess be in taking too many Rites and Ceremonies into the Worship of God then he hastily assumes this by this it is granted Any one Ceremony if made a part of Worship as the word signifies is a Nimiety and excess in Religion and superstitious not the multitude only as was said above the Rites and Ceremonies themselves are not Superstitious but the multitude onely But now he sayes Any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault Now that cannot be if onely the multitude of Ceremonies makes them superstitious suppose ten Ceremonies all singly indifferent and lawful which of the ten is a Nimiety and a fault they are supposed all equally good or if the number onely make them Superstitious how can so many goods added together make them bad either therefore there must be some Rule in Scripture how many Ceremonies may be instituted and yet not be superstitious unless they exceed that number or else the Adding of one any one Ceremony to the Rule is a Nimiety and faulty in Superstition Let the Doctor resolve us in this case Section
Canon of Faith from John the longest liver of the Apostles but submits to the Western custome and so subjects us to Rome which he so fears and warned me to be ware of I leave these to his resolution and come to consider what he sayes to my arguments against it 1. There is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor ground to found it on p. 244. n. 12 I said there was no ground in Scripture to found it on To which he says nouothing To this he hath three answers 1. There is small virtue in this from Scripture negative As little virtue as there is in this negative argument for me it seemes to be great for himself against me For here n. 17. he pleads thus against the institution of the Lords-day Sure the New Testament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it And again against the use of the fourth Commandment Where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment p. 263. n. 8. And once more p. 281. n. 19. Christ never reprehended the observation of the Feast of Dedication that we read of therefore he approved it But in the case in hand ad hominem I have argued strongly from Scripture negative Will worship is not commanded in Scripture therefore it is unlawful But this Festival with that of the Nativity is made a Will-worship by Papists and the Doctor ergo they are unlawfull and as such have no ground in Scripture 2. Answer The Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the Feast is some be it acknowledged a less weighty ground in Scripture for the observation This word of the Apostle in the judgement of all Interpreters hath nothing to do with his Festival The text and context are also against his gloss which makes it so light that it is not so much as some weight for the observation of it And I having said so much against this gloss in my 31 Section of Fest I wonder he should so confidently produce it here and say nothing to purpose to it in its own place All I shall say now is this that if this be the sense of it which the Doctor begs it hath not onely some but an exceeding weighty ground for the observation of his Festival a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law-giving an institution Divine which he will deny to the Lords-day and proves more then he intended not onely the observation and practice but also institution Apostolical But more of this below 3. Answ The mention of the Lords-day Rev. 1. is some farther ground if it be the annuall then there is a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days The Doctor is happy if all his suppositions might be granted him he knows the place is generally understood of the Weekly-day and what is then become of his clear evidence But hear again If it should be the weekly day yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day It is observable that in all this discourse of Festivals the Doctors great designe is to vilifie if not to nullifie the authority of the Lords day so to exalt above or equal with it his Festivals which if there were no other crime is sufficient to stir the indignation of any truly Religious man Here he does it and again presently n. 17. and afterwards often as I shall note as I pass on But this he here asserts is most incongruous Rather the weekly-day was the foundation of the annual day For first it s said Christ rose on the first day of the week often and thereupon It was designed to be the Christian Sabbath or day of Assemblies but never is it said he rose upon such a day of the moneth or year 2. If the Lords weekly day was not first instituted how came the contest between the Churches whether Easter day should be observed on the Lords-day or on the Jewish day which might and did fall on any other day of the week Tradition sayes that Peter and Paul observed the Festival on the Lords day at Rome does not this suppose the Lords-day to be instituted before the Festival of Easter Saint John and Philip it s said kept it on the Jewish day how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day And let the Doctor remember that his Mother the Church of England as she includes Easter day among the Sundayes making it no otherwise an Holy-day so she founds the Lords-day not upon the annual day but upon the fourth Commandment When she commands this prayer to be said after it Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law But the Doctor will either prove or illustrate what he said As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week As if the fast on Good-friday were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lords-day or humane constitutions were to be a foundation for a Divine institution That the Apostles did expresly repeal those Feasts n. 14. p. 244 hath not he says the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10 Let the Reader turn to the place p. 3. n. 2. and see what he saith to that text all is but this It is peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Feasts but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of the Resurrection Even from the beginning to the end of this account his designe is to slur the lustre of the Lords-day levelling it to his Festivals But first the Apostle speaks indefinitely against observation of days as religious Paulus praecepit sayes Hierom. all beside the Lords day which he had there also established as the day of collection and first of Assemblies for that collection supposes the day before designed instead of the old Sabbath as well at Galatia as among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16.1 Now concerning the collection for the Saints as I have given order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordered ordained to the Churches of Galatia even so do ye upon the first day c. Here 's an Apostolical institution for collections on the Lords day and presupposes the day before appointed in both those Churches 2. It is no wayes probable that the Apostle would cry down Jewish Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost and set up the very same again at the same time as Christian Feasts as I said above If they were abolished as parts of Ceremonial-worship how scandalous might it have been to change onely the name nay the name was not changed in other Churches and set up other Feasts in their stead as parts of Christian Worship for so they would be esteemed if the Apostle had set them up or brought them in The sestimony of Socrates the Historian he eludes by a distinction
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
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