I dare not be so confident as he is to boast in a manner That this hath been the onely aim of all hitherto publisht by him and so fully satisfied in himself thereof that he doubts not to approve it to any that can make question of it What even to God himself Is not the heart deceitful above all things Did not Paul think he aimed at Gods glory in persecuting the Truth Do not the Advocates of Rome confidently pretend the same end with him in propagating their Errors and Superstitions Is not the Doctor himself a man animal gloriae Does not much learning and knowledge puff up and cause the owners to start up new marks of self-reputation and vain-glory But this I can freely grant That in such Doctrines as these before us which have immediate influence upon practice it is charity to endeavour the disabusing of all and not to suffer any fruitful and noxious Errour upon my neighbour which if my heart deceive me not was one ground of my undertaking his three Treatises 8. As for his Discourse of Infant-Baptism both what he hath written and what he intends to publish more I shall wish it good speed but I fear it will little prevail with his adversary who is tenacious of Scripture evidence but little moved by Customes of the Church either Jewish or Christian And his way of proving it waving the Scripture grounds whence it may fairly be deduced may tend to weaken those Arguments of Scripture and in the end may serve to strengthen Traditions wherein the Scripture is silent And this I fear was the Doctors Design in his first Quaere for Resolving Controversies 9 He does very well to wish the Reader the ease of a spectator that it may be his lot to live peaceably and quietly with all men But I am sure this will not be long of him who does what he can to give some of his Readers my self and some others the labour of some moneths if not years if our Replies be prolonged to the measure of his Answers wherein how ambitious soever they be of Peace it is violently wrested from them by his drawing out the Saw of Contention by multitude of words 10. That he hath fortified himself with what patience I know not for the present undertaking is visible enough by the bulk of his Book which will make it but little supportable to his Readers For though he have not transcribed the several Sections of my Diatribe's which had been equal and fair to have done but rather omits to take notice several times of four or five leaves together where it was too hot or too heavy yet hath he poured out a flood of words as the Sepia her inbie stuff to delude the Fisherman to drown a poor little Tract of fourteen with well nigh forty sheets of paper If I should hold proportion in my Reply the volume will swell so big that we may write upon it Quis legethaec Onely this may be added That as if he wanted employment to set himself on work and to trouble his Reader he catches at every little oversight See his Superst sect 32. intention or extention whether of my self or the Printers as for instance sometimes he complains of Figures too many or too few sometimes the mistake of a Letter Intention for Intension c. whereof I shall give him an account in due time by shewing the same mistakes in his own saying onely now It becomes not so grave a Doctor to catch flies having so much greater work to do 11. Lastly This I thought good to give the Reader notice of That the Doctor hath obscured the business by a new obstruse method of answering both concealing my particular Sections which he might easily have followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I did his and also devising a new method of Chapters Sections Numbers that his Reader must needs be put to much trouble to finde out mine and more to compare them with his Whereas if he had followed me Section by Section as I did him every thing had been visible in its place and easier to judge of I shall not trouble the Reader to go seek for Chapter Section Number in his discourse but onely point him to the page and number where he may readily finde what is excepted to Onely first I am engaged to follow him in his Chapter that concerns my Title Page for that hath not escaped his censure and then that which takes notice of my Preface and with all due speed to come to his Animadversions upon my particular Diatribe's 2. Of my Title pages 1. HE spake afore in his Preface of my little partiality in examining his Tracts pag. 1. n. 1. but himself is more scrupulous in examining my very Title Pages and the Scriptures themselves by me prefixed are called to Account for standing there especially that of Col. 2.4 8. as intended for an Antidote against that Philosophy c. which Paul forewarns men there to take heed of To which I shall onely say that I see no reason why it might not be as lawful for me to set this Scripture before my Tract of Superstition as for him to set the very same Scripture after his Tract of Superstition for so it is Take heed that no man deceive you with vain words no doubt intended for a Antidote against Philosophy c. And what unkindness to Num. 2. and jealousie of Phylosophy I shewed therein was the very same which himself shewed in his yea the same which Saint Paul then had amongst his Colosians Not I suppose the Gnosticks Divinity who were not then hatched but that Phylosophy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of False Apostles risen newly out of the Sects of Phylosophers whom the Divel stirred up to corrupt Religion with partly Phylosophycal notions and partly Judaical genealogies and Fables as almost all Interpreters besides himself do understand those texts by him cited n. 3 pag. 2. And how conveniently this text was accommodated to any to all my discourses will be discerned by my answer to his 4 questions 1. The text had no relation to Gnostick principles and therefore none of theirs are charged upon any of his Tracts But enticing words and subtle perswasions with Phylosophycal notions and reasons wherewith many say the Doctor is as well furnished as any man may there be found 2. Thereupon it is not charged upon him as Heretical or Heathenish or as Gnosticisme to maintain the celebration of Christs Nativity to have nothing criminous in it But this is charged upon him To make that day more holy and a part of worship as some with the Doctor have done and is not yet denied in all this discourse of his is justly censurable as criminous either under the Head of Superstition or Will-worship or both 3. No blameless Institutions of the Church no not of Rome it self are charged by any that I know for Despoiling of Christians or Sacriledges keeping them within Scripture bounds But
they are that in these sad and erroneous times do stand up against all the Sects and Heresies p. 259. n. 4. is evident enough though I had said nothing and how little those of the Doctors parties do appear to oppose them is clear enough partly because they are willing to put that burthen upon those whom they esteem their enemies and partly because they preach the same Doctrines of Arminius and Papists which themselves do hold and publish But if the Reader will see the Preface to the Doctors Practical Catechisme in the first Impressions This Diatribist as this Publicane n. 5. he will finde a Pharisee could not have said more in his solemnest magnificat then the Doctor hath suffered to be said of himself It may be he was sensible of it and therefore hath wisely left it out in his last Impression And how he slights and undervalues both the learning and persons of his Adversaries hath been shewed above and may again ere long But it seems the touch of Arminianisme hath enfired the Doctors zeal whereof he is as guilty as any I know witness his Catechisme and his Fundamentals I ask in a word Durst the Doctor have broached such Doctrine in his Prelates time in K. James his dayes or beginning of King Charles We see how dangerous a thing Toleration is Yet if we speak of pride what hath an humble Publican to do with an high flown Arminian who dare answer the Apostles quis te discrevit with an ego me decerno And when you hear men plead so much for Free-will and Free-will offerings and uncommanded perfection above both Law and Gospel and tell us confidently they may and do expect a greater reward for uncommanded virtues then for commanded duties are not such men almost as high as Papists and Jesuites who dare say to God He should be unjust if he do not give eternal life n. 5. to their good works But to vent his anger the Doctor charges me with two palpable untruths first that I say absolutely that Festivals are forbidden by the second and fourth Commandment when I onely say If they be made parts of Worship as holy as the Lords day c. Then 2. that I think grace may not be received in vain When upon his own confession I meant that God does not give it onely to incline and leave men free to use it or not to use it see ad p. 199. n. 6. and p. 200. n. 9. And having done this he charges himself with two commonly reputed errours 1. To favour slavish fear which most Divines condemn 2. To favour mercenary obedience which natural men have disallowed as less ingenuous and our Saviour checked some of his followers for Ye seek me because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled See above ad p. 26. n. 20. of the first and ad pag. 207. numb 15. of the second I am again charged unjustly with change of his words p. 260. n. 1. upon a designe He said The solemnity hath no other design but to teach us what we have received from God and assist us to render a pious acknowledgement of it c. which I interpret of the designe in the first Institutors of this service Surely if we will speak rationally and properly the Solemnity it self is not capable of having designes it must then be in the first Institutors or second observers And if so the example of Gideons golden Ephod or his designe in setting it up is parallel enough with his case of Festivals Their designes equally in appearance good the issue equally bad both have proved snares in after-times n. 3. From whence it followes not as he infers That every Festival designed as a publick pious acknowledgement c. is to be looked at as a snare to all the people of God but that in the service of God no plausible designe can priviledge an humane Institution from being a snare to Gods people being made parts of Worship c. as in time Gideons Ephod proved and his Festivals also amongst Papists as I there said And sure for all his Logical notions examples are so far argumentative But how then could he have given a lash to the Lords day if he had not thus Syllogized n. 4. For then indeed the Lords day which is supposed to be designed for those good ends must upon the same account be abolisht also Upon what account because it 's supposed to be of the same Institution with his Festival this he will assert anon Or because it may by some be abused to Superstition as his Ephod was This I suppose he intends As if the abuse of an Ordinance of God were to be parallel'd with the like abuse of an Ordinance of man All Gods own Ordinances may be abused to Superstition but I hope the Doctor will grant another remedy to them then abolition But humane Institutions if they may at all be admitted into the Worship of God if they prove snares to the people of God deserve no other remedy then the brazen Serpent and Gideons Ephod found a total abolition The Doctors inference therefore upon the Lords day proceeds upon his supposition that it's Authority is the same with his Festivals or else if the one the Lords day be of Divine and the other his Festival of humane Institution the one for such abuses must be abolished the other onely purged from such abuses We are now coming to make good the charge of Superstition and Will-worship upon the late observation of his Festival p. 261. n. 1. which the Doctor hath no mind to meddle with but pleads his largeness on these subjects already to ease himself of the trouble and as he pretends his Reader also of an ungrateful penance When as I dare say nothing would have been more grateful to many of his Readers then that he had clearly washed his hands of this charge or acknowledged the truth of his guilt And now I see the reason in part why he waved that necessary debate of the power of the Church to institute Ceremonies such as his Festivals are pleaded to be In my 9. Sect. of Fest I propounded and stated the question as knowing that it would be of great use in the following parts of this discourse but he lays it aside and will by no means be brought into the list of this debate See supra ad p. 249. n. 1. His first argument to free the observers from appearance of Will-worship was this They observe this usage in obedience to the Laws of the Church I answered that he ought to have proved first that they which instituted the Festival had a lawful power to do it else Papists may use the same argument for their Holy-days n. 3. c. Now here his answer 1. My not proving of this was founded in my supposing it that as Magistrates in general so Governors of a Church are invested with power to institute Circumstances of Worship c. But here
are many misadventures 1. That he supposes what he should have here or some where proved at least after my challenge of him to prove it Sect. 9. and stating the question for him 2. The Magistrates civil have a larger power to make Lawes in things indifferent then the Governours of the Church in Religious affairs who are tied up to the Laws of the word 3. The Doctor changes the words of the question which was of Ceremonies made parts of Religion or Worship and not of Circumstances of commanded Worship as time place c. The Papists for certain do make their Festivals Holy-dayes parts of their Religious Worship and may not they plead for observation of them p. 262. n. 4. They do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church And so in other usages of theirs Hear his second answer to this This is interpretable as a far greater kindness to them then I have ever been guilty of the Church may command in lawful things therefore it may do so in unlawful things But first what are the things unlawful which the Church of Rome commands adoration of Images the Mass c. He must know that this will not reach to my answer which is of observing by others not commanding by the Church and he cannot condemn the observers of things unlawful commanded by the Church till he have first proved that the Church had no power to command such things So by proportion he cannot justifie observers of Festivals by this that they do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church till he have not supposed but proved the Church had power to institute them wherein the force of my answer lay though the Doctor would not see it 2. But speak to the point of Holy-days which the Doctor thinks as lawful as they do If a Papist should answer my proposition and question Why do you observe your Festivals he would answere just as the Doctor does he does it in obedience to the Church and therefore it is no Will-worship But say I you must first prove the Church hath power to institute them No sayes he with the Doctor I suppose that and therefore do not prove it What can the Doctor say more He may not now come and say the Church of Rome commands things unlawful for he and they suppose Festivals to be lawful and if he say so he condemns himself with them If he shall say they command them as parts of Worship and make them Holy-dayes and that makes them unlawful he must have recourse to my answer It will not excuse the observers to say they do it in obedience to the lawes of the Church unless he prove they had power to command those things unlawful which he cannot do And if this answer be good that the Church of Rome commands things unlawful when she makes her Festival as parts of Religion and Worship c. I dare put it upon this issue that the Doctor is as guilty as they in these crimes and does them a far greater kindness then I have ever been guilty of By my answer to this first comparison he may see the unjustness of the other three which he would fain put as absurdities upon me and make me ridiculous to his Readers I could easily retort them but I forbear recrimination I shall onely say the Doctor varies the question and then makes his Inferences and Comparisons for the state of the question was whether the Church may ordain and private persons observe Festivals as Holy-dayes parts of Worship c. and then I dare make comparisons and inferences with him 1. It is as lawful for the Church of Rome or any Church to command other unlawful things as to command Festivals or observe them as Holy-dayes as parts of Worship c. for both are equally unlawfull 2. There is equal unreasonableness in besainting those that are gotten into the Calendar at Rome and consecrating that is making holy a day and a part of Worship as in consecrating a day to the commemorating of the birth of Christ upon the same terms especially some of them which were observed near the Apostles times as that of Ignatius and Polycarp is said to be which cannot be proved of his Festival But comparisons are odious and I forbear the rest he may easily make it out The onely question is Whether the Doctor as he does plead for some Festivals which they of Rome observe as well as he so do not make them as they do Holy-days and parts of Worship c. and so be equally guilty of the crimes charged upon them as they are which shall by and by be manifested But something else is first considerable The Doctor justified the observers by their obedience to the fifth Commandment I answered that he might better have justified their obedience by the fourth Commandment having founded dayes of publick Worship on that Commandment It is said he a designation of Time for the special performing of publick Worship as necessary Now I supposed that he by designation of Time had meant the special Time there designed a weekly Sabbath or one day in seven necessarily to be observed and then he might have justified their observation by that Commandment and needed not have reduced it to the fifth Commandment But it seemes I was mistaken for he intended no such thing Hear what he says The difference is very conceiveable betwixt time or times generally considered for Gods service p. 262. n. 6. and this or that particular time The meaning is that sometime is necessary by that Commandment but the particular designation is at the Churches disposing the former belongs to the fourth Commandment the latter to the fifth See but how liberal the Doctor is to God 1. That God should have some time 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 fourth Commandment Some time why some time is of the Law of Nature for the Doctor to eat his breakfast in as much as he can do nothing without some time and this is all the morality the great School-man and the Doctor his Symmists allow to the fourth Commandment which would have been moral or rather natural had there never been any fourth Commandment placed in the Decalogue But seeing God is Lord of us and all our time it had been fitter to have said All our time was due to God for his service except some time be allowed by him as necessary for our worldly business Besides this some time to be assigned for Gods service is not said to be designed by God in particular but onely that some time must be assigned that is by the Church which is poorly begged as afore And this is the Helena for which they so much contend and no marvel for if they can but get this granted that the power of designation of the necessary sufficient Time for Gods service a thing
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
to the third Commandment a taking of Gods Name in vain which is much manifested by every creature But I believe the Doctor will laugh at such old Divinity and were it not for the ill consequences thereof would easily make them no sins excluding them out of the Decalogue which would be a brave doctrine to gratifie the Ranters If the Doctor cannot or but hardly tell to what Commandment of the Decalogue to reduce those Intemperances they will easily believe and plead they are no sins But the Doctor shall be no Catechist no Casuist or Confessor of mine that holds any thing a sin not forbidden by the Law and so is unable to resolve me against which Commandment the Intemperate use of the Creature offends I have heard some of no mean pretence to Piety excuse some of their party that have been drunk They have but taken a little too much of the Creature I wonder not the Doctor is so favorable to the Riotous part of his Festival when thus he glosses of sins and Commandments But he gives another instance That sort of lying or false speaking which is no way hurtful or no way intended to be hurtful to the neighbor He means the jeasting lye to which he might have added the officious lye which is helpful to the neighbor without hurting any man If no body be hurt by these the truth it self is hurt and that will be hurtful to the speaker what ever it be to the neighbor There are many more of these instances belike and by Papists are called but Venial sins with whom how near he complies in these cases let him consider Here again p. 36. n. 12. the Doctor speaks of the unlawfulness of Ceremonies and uncommanded worship together as if they were both equally by us judged unlawful But in stead of rectifying a mistake he makes one He hath not considered this one thing that whatsoever is not forbidden is lawful not whatsoever is not commanded is unlawful These words if referred to Circumstances are both wayes true but referred to worship both wayes false whatsoever Circumstance of worship is not forbidden is lawful but whatsoever worship is not commanded is unlawful as was said above ad p. 33. n. 7. And then uncommanded worship if it be a sin and unlawful being forbidden by some Commandment and all the other nine renouncing it it must but without crowding be reduced to the second Commandment or to none My answer therefore is ready to his questions 1. That many n. 13. yea most of our Divines have said as fully as I have done that voluntary uncommanded worship is expresly against the second Commandment meaning against the sense of that Commandment 2. They that have referred it thither have given as cogent reasons for it as the Doctor himself hath done when he glossed the sense of the second Commandment to be this That God must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him and appointed by him Whence it may be argued and concluded that worship not appointed that is not commanded by him is forbidden by the second Commandment In his answer to my second proof he is very brief and very obscure and deceives us by a general n. 14. p. 37. That all Additions to the Rule of worship are not Superstition But I say all uncommanded worship is an Addition to the Rule of worship and so Superstition and sinful He is as short to the third n. 15. Worship of Angels is forbidden by a positive command and so must needs be sinful but the doing of what is not commanded is not a sin This last is a meer delusion for if he speak of Circumstances or Ceremonies as he calls them the doing of them is not a sin but if he speak of worship the doing of what is not commanded is a sin as himself hath often confessed And when I added in the close of the third proof That they that worship Angels p. 37. n. 16. do not urge it as a Commandment of God I intended it as a prevention to his objection or assertion That the Dogmatizers did pretend a Commandment of God and that indeed was Superstition and allowed scarce any other possible to a Protestant He answers He never doubted but there were other sins beside Dogmatizing c. But he should have said Other kindes of Superstition beside that of Dogmatizing As he sayes The murtherer is a sinner though he teach it for a Doctrine that it is lawful to kill his brother So he is Superstitious that places more vertue in things then God or nature hath put in them And he is Superstitious that addes new worship to the Rule of worship though neither of then be Dogmatizers to teach it for Doctrine or a Commandment of God c. And though he oblige not as from God any other man to do the like As he speaks because he goes against express precept Thou shalt not adde to the word or Rule of worship Lastly I said if Will-worship be innocent Rome is justified in her rabble of Superstitious worship n. 17. c. He answers to this effect If it be true that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious he undertook not to justifie Rome or any other Churches in their worship c. But the Church of England c. This is like the rest a meer diversion for the question is whether Will-worship of any Church Rome or England be justifiable and he sayes if it be true that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious doubtingly he undertook not to justifie it and yet justifies Will-worship to be as innocent as the Free-will-offerings without any distinction And this may serve for the third discovery of causes of his mistakes The last was That he takes for granted p. 38. n. 1. that a Church or person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded of God For which he offers this probation n. 3. Whatsoever is in it self perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe But so is the Christmas Festival ergo I answer first to the proposition it offends in leaving out the chief term in the question viz. Worship and should run thus whatsoever worship is sure or lawful c. And then that it begs the very question that a Church hath power to Institute worship which is denied by me and the Doctor himself Then to the Assumption it should thus be propounded But Christmas Festival is a worship free and lawful But this again is acknowledged by the Doctor to be false who denies to make it a new worship but a Circumstance of worship Is not this a probation unbeseeming the Doctors learning n. 4. which his three considerations will no way support For first the Church hath no power to Institute nor the Christian to Observe any worship not commanded of God 2. The Christian may freely do what is prescribed by the Church in
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
describing a party of men known well enough to the nation Thus he begins If some men The opposers of the Ceremonies of our Church against whom that tract was prepared Infr. p. 114 n. 7. as they will abide no Rites so they would avow no quarrels but c. Who knows not that he means those godly learned conscientious men who opposed the Ceremonies of our Church So he sayes expresly here n. 5. All that have opposed our Church in point of Rites and Ceremonies and branded the innocent as guilty of no less crime then Superstition This part of the charge is false for they could and did abide some Rites as we said above and did avow no quarrels but for what they thought Scripture would give them particular directions and commands But he goes on and worse And consequently if they would not judge or damn their brethren when neither Christ nor his Writ c. condemnes them This is both false and uncharitable to censure men as judging and damning their brethren when neither Christ nor his Writ condemn'd them when as they were men of humble and meek Spirits readier to be judged and condemn'd by their opposites and patiently to suffer it It followes which till it be done it must be expected that they afore described who have learn't one of the Divels Attributes that of Satan adversary or enemy man will also advance to another that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calumniator and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuser of the brethren c. What could he have said worse if he had called them Divels Is there yet any more dregs in the bottome of the cup yes a little very charitable stuff It now being by some men resolved if the testimony of the rest of their lives may be believed that there is no capital damning sin worth heeding or abstaining from but Superstition See p. 90. n. 5. c. Now Reader is this a Satyre of a vice and not a description of persons or a party can the Doctor with perfect peace of minde review those Sections and see no breach of duty none against whom he hath offended Non equidem in video miror magis Onely one thing more and we shall part a while The Doctor sayes He can very well abstain from making use of the advantage given him of more then recriminating And wel he may for he hath done it before saying I have charged that foul sin of Superstition upon the Doctor personnally and enlarged it to his party which must needs involve all the obedient Sons of the Church of England c. To which I answer first For the Doctor himself I have charged him with nothing but what is avowed by himself to be his opinion and practice and what is proved really to be superstitious according to the true notion of the word amongst reformed Orthodox Divines These are my words in this last Section which if it be not true why did not the Doctor deny the charge and make it appear that his own principles do not hold out the nature of Superstition his own opinion and practice do not conclude him guilty of what is laid to his charge This is very observable that where-ever I charge him to be superstitious he moves it and takes no notice of it as will appear hereafter 2. As for his party he takes too much Honor to himself to think I meant all the obedient Sons of the Church of England No there is a party in that party that condemn the Doctor for his Superstition as much as I do But the party that I joyn'd with the Doctor were those too forward Sons of the Church of England who were if God had not staid them running away from their Mother to Rome both in Doctrine and Worship and by all modest and pious men even of Episcopal notion judged as Hetordox in the one and as Superstitious in the other In a word I shall make the Doctor to be his own Accuser in the premises and his own Judge in the conclusion of any charge I lay against him And so I now rest Exercitation 2. Of Will-worship Sect. 1. Had the Reverend and Learned Doctor as it became him distinguished the words either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek or Will-worship in English c. HE now begins to do what before he had forgot p. 93. n. 3. or neglected to distinguish till he hath confounded the words more then before and yet not telling us clearly in what sense he takes it as he promised n. 2. First Betwixt Worship on the one side and on the other side external Ceremonies or Circumstances of it which are not parts but accidents of Worship Where he does not distinguish of the word Worship as was required in it self that we might know what he means by Worship in the word Will-worship but between Worship and Ceremonies or Circumstances of Worship which are not parts but accidents of Worship as he sayes And yet some Ceremonies and Circumstances are made by him and called Worship as we shall hear 2. He distinguishes Worship indeed after as confused a manner when he sayes Worship whether the Theological vertue or some act thereof together with the degrees and frequency of those acts As if a man should distinguish Justice his present instance thus Justice is either 1. The Moral vertue it self 2. Or some act thereof 3. Or some degree or frequency of that act Were these several species of Justice or not rather the same vertue distinguished by accidental differences So the Acts of Worship and the degrees thereof c. are either the same kinde of Worship or but accidental differences of the same Worship 2. In his distinction of Worship against Ceremonies and Circumstances he is no lesse confused For 1. Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship are not one and the same which yet he seemes to make them as was said above 2. Ceremonies and Circumstances were sometimes parts of Worship and so Worship Ceremonial as the Sabbath and Temple time and place after mentioned in his Illustration by Justice c. And Ceremonies however are commonly taken for external Worship as I said above and then he should have distinguished Worship thus Worship is either Moral and Substantial or Ceremonial and Accidental and then his Ceremonies had been not onely parts but species of Worship And such indeed he makes them however he dissemble the matter here But who is the wiser by all this confusion who can tell for he tells us not what is meant by Worship in the word Will-worship It must be either the vertue or some act or degree or frequencie of it on the one side or a Circumstance no part but accident of Worship which of them I know not Perhaps his Illustration will spring some light As in Justice it may signifie 1. The vertue it self 2. Some Act of that vertue Or 3. the degree thereof and frequent repetition of the Acts of it but for the Circumstances of time or
ancient Church Dr. Ham. of Infant Bapt. p. 97. n. 5. Yet not one word of Christmas in the end of the second and beginning of the third Century Tertullians and Origenes time 2. The Analogy holds not in these two Festivals For first Easter had a solemne Feast of the Jews to plead either its Institution or observation but there was no Feast of the Jews at the time of his Christmas but it seems rather to be taken up in imitation of the Gentile Saturnalia a good while after 2. Easter day the day of Christs Resurrection is particularly set down and by the Asiaticks observed according to the Jewish account or Lunary year in all the four Evangelists But the day of Christs Nativity as it cannot be discovered out of Scripture so is observed according to the Romish or Solary year 3. Easter day in the Western Church observed on the Lord day may seem to carry some Antiquity in the face of it But the observing of Christmas according to the Romish year doth fairly shew it was not observed in the Apostles time nor by men that came from Jerusalem 4. The Church of England observed Easter day as a Lords day but Christmas as a peculiar Festival and therefore the Analogy is small between them Whereupon the argument is of no force That the laying aside this Festival of Christmas of Easter enough is said afore is a separation from the Apostolick and purest time When it can never be proved that it was in use in those times or some good while after The Analogy holds onely upon Supposition That if the Apostles did institute and observe Easter as a Christian Festival which is proved most improbable or uncertain they might proportionably institute and observe his Christmas which is more uncertain if not certainly false But what say we p. 256. n. 7. To the Solemnities and Festivities of Ignatius and Polycarp two Bishops that lived in the Apostles times observed from the very times of their deaths and that in compliance with other the like Festivals of the Church before them which must needs come home to observation of Festivals in the * When as these Martyrs died not till after all the Apostles many years and there is not the least mention of the Festivities of any of the Apostles till many ages after Apostles days To this I say many things 1. The Dr. pittifully and poorly begs that those Feasts were instituted in compliance with other the like Festivals of the Church before them Whereas if those were Feasts as after they were used they had better Antiquity then not onely his Christmas but his Easter also and had none before them unless he will plead St. Stephens day who was a Martyr before them long after put to attend upon Christmas day 2. If these Feasts of Ignatius which he often mentions here and after were observed so near the Apostles days as he asserts does not the Doctor 1. cast dirt in his Mothers face for abolishing those Feasts putting them out of the Calendar and separating from the Apostolick and purest times 2. Does he not also much gratifie the Church of Rome which he sometimes causlesly casts upon me as more conformable to the purest times in observation of those Festivals then his Mother the Church of England 3. Is not he himself a Separatist and Schismatick in his compliance with his Mother in his separation from the Apostolick purest times in casting off Holy-days of above fourteen hundred years standing from the very Apostles days Let him see what he will answer And I shall onely adde If the Church of England in King Edwards days in rasing out of the Calendar those Feasts did not separate from the Apostolical Universal Church nor does it follow that in laying aside his other Festivals she hath made any separation from that Church the rather because he cannot prove his Christmas Apostolical as he would believe he hath proved those Feasts of Ignatius and Polycarp n. 7. to be Oh but there 's no analogy betwixt the Church of Englands departing from Rome and the Diatribists departing from the Church of England Where it s observable that he takes the Church of England to be onely the Superiours that is the Bishops the Fathers of the Church as Romanists do those of the inferiour Clergy are none of the Church no nor the Parliament of England But if I remember aright his Superiours the Bishops were laid aside even by the King himself excluded the Lords house before his Festivals and so had no Superiority in things agitated in Parliament and then we made no Separation from our lawful superiours in this particular And so his first difference is nothing The second is this n. 8. Those things wherein the Church of England departed from the Romish opinions and practices were none of them such as this of Festivals common usages of the universal ancient primitive purest Church but innovations unduely brought in and imposed upon all Christians Yes just the same usages of the ancient primitive Church the Feasts of Ignatius and Polycarp observed near the Apostles days as he says and where is then the difference If then this be any advantage to the Romish Church n. 9. she may thank the Doctor for it who pleads so much for some Festivals to be in the Apostles days and purest times that he hath made his Mother a Schismatick in rasing them out of the Calender c. as was said above But I shall enter my protestation of discent to this proposition also It is an easie thing for the Doctors great learning to slight all that comes from others p. 257. n. 1. as worthy no reply How solidly I have proved the observation of this Festival by many among us to be superstitious is already evident and will be more ere long though the Doctor will wink and pass it all by as if he saw it not 2. That contrary extremes of Superstition and profaneness n. 2. may meet in the same person may indeed seem a wonder and very strange but is too often exemplified I have known and I believe the Doctor too some Sons of this Church superstitious to admiration who have been as profane as almost the times yielded any As if they had intended to make good that speech of Socrates cited by me Fest pag. 171. There are some who think all whoredome and drunkenness c. to be a thing indifferent that do contend for Festival dayes as for life Nor is it such an irrational thing in these times to call the same man Papist first and then Socinian For as much as some that are Papists in some opinions and practices are also Socinians in other points as might be proved That I derive Superstition from super statutum is proved false by his own confession above The rest in numb 3. hath been spoken to afore and that of the Creed and Catechisme is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I pass it by Who
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
then they are either both Religious Feasts and parts of Worship of humane institution and both unlawful or if they be both but circumstances of Worship they are nothing to the purpose which is of uncommanded Worship not of uncommanded Circumstances of Worship And that they went beyond their commission in making it an annual Religious Feast I hinted by saying that neither Solomon nor Zerubbabel did make theirs so for ought we read n. 14. Here sayes he are the Symptomes again of a desperate cause that fain would catch at some supports but is forsaken of all His evidences are all too short 1. That Judas c. ordain'd it should be kept thus from year to year is partly true but not evident they kept it thus that is as a Religious Feast but in mirth and gladness or if they did the question is which the Doctor must not beg whether they did well or no the Negative whereof is proved above 2. It 's not evident it was so observed as a Religious Feast by the Jews in Christs time it might be as a civil Feast 3. Nor is it evident that though Christ was present in the Temple at the Feast time he approved and confirm'd it If it was onely a civil Feast it is nothing to the purpose though he approved it as he did the wedding Feast John 2. If it was a Religious Feast and so made a part of Worship Christ would not approve it because they that did so institute or so observe it went beyond their commission As for those learned men that interpreted it of Solomons or Zerubbabels Dedication p. 280. n. 15 as they certainly erred in so doing as I proved so they mistook in making of them annual for the reason by me given they might make an extraordinary day of thanksgiving for some special mercy as a day of Humiliation for some judgement felt or feared for then God calls to those duties but to make either of them Annual and perpetual I desire to see their commission And this may answer the Doctors demand n. 16. Supposing those two were never observed but once why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often or annually If the first offended not by being super statutum how could the second or hundreth repetition render it criminous I shall but demand of him supposing Jehoshaphat in an exigent called and made a solemn day of Humiliation why might he not have made it annual to posterity if the first offended not how the annual repetition of it Answer one and answer both The resolution is given above A Magistrate may upon a special occasion appoint a Feast or Fast but to make those dayes perpetually Religious Feasts or Fasts he hath no commission And if he make a civil Feast perpetuall it 's nothing to our debate Let not the Doctor snarle at this answer I shall boldly say n. 17. if King Lucius never so long ago or any other King had kept Christmas day or Good-friday as Religious and parts of Worship as Papists do now and the Doctor with them I should have written Triplicem Diatriben against them as now I do against the Doctor But if he had made them no more then Circumstances of Worship I should never have used my pen against him That Christ was present at the Feast as a Feast n. 18. is also begged but nor is nor can be proved the text says not he was at the Feast Vide Junium contr 3. l. 4 a. 17. an 6. Pelican in 1 Mac. 4. but Jesus walked in the Temple Now take the Doctors inferences or Interrogations Was not that an evidence of Christs approbation Jesus walked in the Temple ergo he approved the Festival take another like it Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at Pentecost ergo he approved and confirmed that Festival after Christ had abolished it and then adde would Paul have been present at an unlawful superstitious detestable feast c. and never have reprehended it so the Doctor argues Christ was at the Feast ergo if unlawful he would have reprehended it But he doth not reprehend it ergo he approved it But first let him not beg Christ was at it as a Religious Feast 2. Let him remember his own Rule There is small virtue in an argument from Scripture Negativè p. 244. n. 12. 3. Nor was it any more scandalous for Christ to be in the Temple at the time of the Feast then for Paul and other Apostles to be there at Pentecost and other times when Temple and Festivals were voided by Christs death If I had made such loose inferences how would the Doctor have insulted He cannot but know that my answer is made by very learned men over whom the Doctor would not thus triumph n. 20. p 28. I could now return him his own words a little inverted What if Jesus walked in the Temple on the Feast day doth it therefore follow that he approved c. This is a new kinde of arguing still c. Marriage n. 21. he says might be approved to be Religious If he would engage in a new controversie This indeed if proved would help to countenance his Virginity or Caelibate to be Religious and a part of Worship as Papists make it But why Religious because there are Prayers and Sacrament c. at the Celebration of it But this might turn all Civil Feasts into Religious when those or some of those services are premised to them Yea our ordinary meals when Prayers for a blessing before and Praises after are used would be then turn'd into Religious Feasts But he says The onely difference between a Civil and a Religious Feast is that in the one the publick services of the Church some or all of them are used adding Festival diet also whereas the other is made up onely of the latter But enough of this afore ad p. 277. n. 1. His question then is easily answered n. 22. Can the services of the Church being added make that criminous which was innocent before make that which was but civil before sacrilegious and impious That was not the question but whether the services of the Church make a civil Feast Religious And whether beside Superstition and Will-worship Riot and revellings do not pollute his most sacred Festival This rarity the Doctor was acquainted with before but he would forget it to give me a slur in the eyes of his Reader For the Feast of Purim Hest 9. There are many answers given by learned men 1. That it was a civil Feast which appears probable by the text they made it a day of Feasting and Joy c. without any mention of Religious services as I said above see ad p. 277. n. 1. But the Doctor instead of demonstrating will needs suppose p. 282. n. 24. That a day of rest of assembly of feasting and gladness sending of portions such as in a sacrifical Feast will to any unpartial Reader pass for an indication of
did frequent the Assemblies on the old Sabbath and it was observed as I remember together with the Lords-day for the four first Centuries yet cast off at last as not Divine And therefore I must profess my dislike of the Doctors proceedings in his plea for Infant Baptisme meerly or chiefly from Tradition of Apostolical practice and in a manner waving * As imperfect wayes of proving it Inf. Bapt. p. 2. n. 1 2. and professing to lay the most weight upon Apostolical practice p. 95 n. 39. that is Tradition of the Church n. 9. the Scriptures whereon all our Divines do found it But this was done to bring in his beloved Easter and Episcopacy so much doated on For the first how well he hath demonstrated it to be derived from the Apostles as a Christian Festival let the Reader judge by what hath been said above For the other of Episcopacy it leads into a new controversie wherein other Learned men are engaged to them I leave it But I cannot pass by another odious comparison betwixt it and the Lords-day Et si non aliqua nocuisset c. He appeals my knowledge Episcopacy hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords-day I do here profess his mistake of my knowledge for I know no such matter and I durst venture my skill to prove It hath if any thing at all not so much much less perfectly and in every respect to be said for it in the Scriptures as the Lords-day But I shall not enter into a new debate But he speaks of a demonstration of Easter to be derived from the Apostles well then he may insult over the Lords day if he can finde a Law in Scripture for it and none for the Lords day n. 7. And that is found by him in 1 Cor. 5.8 Let us keep the Paschal Festivity so he rendered is Fest s 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us keep the Feast here 's an express Law if it be meant of Easter-day as the Doctor would have us believe But against this I brought some Interpretations and Authorities from Ancient and Modern Writers taking it in another sense and I might have brought more but that I would not fill my pages and trouble my Reader when the context clears it from the Doctors gloss If the Doctor did not believe it why did he cite it If he did believe it why doth he so poorly relinguish it For first he slights all those Authorities onely telling us It were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies p. 285. n. 11 Det. of Inf. Bapt. against M. Tombs p. 17. n. 26. Yet elsewhere says The word is by circumstances applied to the Feast of Easter p. 244. n. 12. as some ground in Scripture for the observation Estius with Beza better hits the sense Sicuâ— Judaei fermento abstinebant quamdiu Pascha celibrabant it a vos Christiana perpetuum Pascha agentes semper oporter abstinere à fermento veteris ac pâ—avae conversationis Itaque Epulemur c. In locum But I could bring him one Testimony that he may not well slight who thus glosses that text Paul himself saying that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us the plain meaning of it being this that the Jewish Passover being abolished we have now the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ substituted in the stead of it Not the Jewish Paschal Feast being abolished Easter Feast is substituted instead of it let us therefore keep the Feast of the Lords Supper which was the very gloss of Aquinas by me produced Secondly as he slights them so he shakes off me with a lofty scorn I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such learned men As if no body of his Adversaries at least not my poor self did converse with the Fathers and other Learned men but himself who yet takes upon him Magisterially and Dictator like to vent his own Interpretations of Scripture quite against the Judgement of many Ancient and most Modern learned Protestants And whether it advantage me or no sure it will prejudice him not a little to bring a text to prove a Law for Easter which his own conscience tells him is not the sense of it by that means to advance it above the Lords-day when he confesses all that he was to prove there was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them As for me whether I have brought from Scripture some other places which are more Apodictical evidences of Apostolical Institution which imports a Law for the Lords day it is left to the Indifferent Reader to judge As for Aerius his being condemned by Epiphanius for holding Festivals unlawful p. 286. n. 1. as also he did Episcopacy if he meant onely as some think he did that it was unlawful to make Festivals parts of Worwip or Holy-days equal with the Lords-day as he was unjustly branded for an Heretick for this opinion so he hath in this as also in the matter of Episcopacy as the Doctor knowes many Orthodox learned Divines of his opinion who were never called Hereticks for so doing I shall give him the thoughts and desires of some of them First Bucer whom the Doctor delights to cite sometimes in Matth. 12. Ferias alias praetur diem Dominicum optarim abrogatus universas c. I could wish that every Holy-day beside the Lords-day were abolished The zeal which brought them in was without all warrant of the word and meerly followed corrupt reason viz. N. B. to drive out the Holy-days of the Pagans c. Those Holy-days have been so tainted with Superstitions that I wonder that any Christian should not tremble at their very names The next is Oecolampadius in Isa 1.4 I never heard wise man yet who did not judge that a great part at least of other Feasts besides the Lords day should be abolished The last shall be the learned Zanchie who though he speaks favourably sometimes of some Festivals yet thus delivers his judgement It is most agreeable to the first Institution and Apostolical writings that one day onely in the week be kept holy in 4. Precept n. 3. Let the Doctor now go on and call these learned men Hereticks in paraphrase as he plainly does it will be little for his credit I shall in the next place take the Doctor at his word p. 286. n. 4. He professes If I shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe Feasts are superstitious he will think himself obliged to do more then deny the accusation That is I suppose he will acknowledge it and retract his errour Now I accept the condition and shall appeal to the Doctors own conscience whether I have not brought fairer evidences of solid arguments and reasons and that from his own concessions that he is superstitious in observing his Festivals then he
all the world as he told us in exposition of Chrysost words ad p. 291. n. 11. It appears at least to be an Ecclesiastical constitution but that 's short of Apostolical Institution or Observation which was confidently asserted above very early received over all the West the greatest part of Christendom But that 's far from the primitive times and short of all the world of Christendom whereof there was a considerable part in the East And within 400 years universally solemnized What is this but what I said in sense that it was not universally solemnized till abbat 400 years after Christ that is about the fourth Century His own words within 400 years imports that it was not universally solemnized in the first 300 years and that 's enough for me And what needed the Doctor to be so critical for a word to make a man an offender what cause was there of that out-cry n. 10. What can be more visibly unjust c. But seeing he is so riged why did he not take notice of those other words of Nicephorus The Emperours Edict if it were reconcilable with the Apostles practice p. 289. n. 3. yet never with an universal observatition of it before that time numb 11. That Justinus the Emperour first commanded it to be kept Festival over the world First over the world that is universally in the sixth Century which is sufficient to clear what I said that it was not universally observed in all ages and places what justice was there in this omission I shall onely ask or take the leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this to make use of his words more truly It seems the guilty person hath the priviledge to cry out first and of accusing and judging in any form of language which to whom it belongs let the Reader now judge And one thing more I shall desire his umpirage in whether the Doctor hath dealt fairly with me in leaping over almost four leaves together from p. 191. to the end of 197. where there were many things of near concernment to himself and to the main debate between us There I did as it were challenge him at his own weapon his own rule of judging and resolving of controversies in his first Quere and by application of that rule regulated by his own cautions made it appeare That he cannot prove that in rejecting or not observing of his Festival we have departed from the universal Church in all ages Let the Reader be pleased to review thoses pages of mine and then give sentence Onely he makes some two or three strictures where he thought he had some colour of advantage First I granted p. 293. n. 6. What had the concordant attestation of the Churches of the Apostolical time while they were yet alive was Apostolical but there are not many things so attested And I added What ever doctrine or practice wants such concordant universal uniform Attestation is not Apostolical for they being all guided by one Spirit would all agree uniformly in the same doctrine and practice Which he cavils at but answers not I added this Negative rule partly as more clear and certain to us at such a distance from the Apostles when it 's harder to finde or judge what was Apostolical by such attestation of the Churches then what is not Apostolical in the want of such attestation partly that I might turn his Canon upon himself by shewing that his Festival hath no such concordant universal uniform attestation of the primitive Ancients or Apostolical Churches 2. I added for an instance the concordant Attestation of the Churches of the second and third Centuries for the Millemium Christs reign on earth for a thousand years which found no considerable if any opposition for 250 years and produced the Lord Falklands words to attest it n. 7. All he sayes to it is this I confess this had not formerly been produced but it falls out that I have elsewhere sufficiently cleared it and he cites Qu. 1. s 38. which I took notice of and answered but he neglects it and tells us also of his defence of the Lord Falk Tract of Infallibility which I have not had the opportunity to see But how he will take off the Lord Falk way of arguing to the invalidating of Traditions I profess not to divine And now after a long and tedious journey we are drawing near to our rest where we meet with a complaint and a valediction The complaint is of my Fastidious Reflections upon three Questions returned to the Author of the 16 Queres But sure the three questions were proposed not onely to that Authour but to any that should thinke fit to resume this business into consideration and enquire any further into this Subject And so to me who was unsatisfied with his whole Tract of Festivals and with the manner of his proposing of those three questions And why he should call them Fastidious Reflexions I know not The R. Doctor and men of his way do not love or do not use to state their questions right as in this so in other controversies that so they may have the more liberty to expatiate in ambiguities This is evident in all these three Diatribees of Superstition Will-worship and Festivals My hardest task hath been to finde out the true state of the controversies about them which I saw the Doctor had declined and when it was done did labour to obscure it why he did so let him now consider It 's apparent that in all the three questions he hath mistated them This I shewed him in each particular and all his answer is Fastidious Reflexions But I had more cause to complain of fastidious neglects and omissions In that first by not stating the question aright either first or last he would insinuate to his facile and credulous Reader that I am of opinion that all Circumstances of Worship as time and place c. when established by the Church are unlawful Which I intended onely of uncommanded Worship as himself hath more then once acknowledged for me 2. That he so fastidiously refuses to answer my four questions truly stating the controversies betwixt us Surely it concern'd the Doctor to have answered yea or nay to affirm or deny them or to shew their mistakes in the mistating of them That he endeavours thus In his proposing of 4. other questions p. 295. n. 12 he inserts particulars wholly rejected by me as that of parts of Worship adding as it is propounded s 9. but I hope not by me so propounded of abuse to Superstition and Profaneness c. I shall be little obliged to accept them in his terms to begin new disputes at this time But first that of parts of Worship was necessarily to be inserted into the question both because in circumstances of Worship we differ not or not so much and also for that what ever the Doctor rejects in words he does indeed maintain Will worship Vncommanded Worship and as hath been