that under the New Testament Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians This no action of common life nor yet a due debt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for using 1 Cor. 7. 31. 1 Cor 9. 17. explained The authority of Augustine Chrysostome and Theophylact. 184 Sect 4. The third of Paul's going up to Jerusalem this under no precept No refusing to suffer no retarding of the Gospel The example of Christ and S. Paul at other times the testimony of Origen and confession of the Diatribist 188 Sect. 5. The fourth of more liberal almes giving Sadduces and Asidaei Righteousness Mercy Paul's advice without command 2 Cor. 8. 2. The Diatribists answer satisfied Almes the Christians sacrifice in the offertory Allowance no command A latitude of degrees in the middle rule The Apostles direction of giving as God hath prospered Of the circumstances of giving 191 Sect. 6. The fifth instance vindicated Circumstances of Prayer acknowledged free Difference between placing worship in gestures c. and pleasing God by them So in Festivals 197 Sect. 7. Of the difference betwixt a precept and a grace The proportionable return to grace is in a latitude The highest no excesse A possibility for grace to be given in vain 198 Sect. 8. My answer to a first bead of objections vindicated Prudence lost by mans own sin recoverable by grace The punishments of Adams sin are not our faults Perfection of innocence capable of degrees So perfection of the Judaical law and of the Christian So mercifulness to ability 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8. 3. Merciful as God is Merciful belongs not to the degree Gods righteousness punishes not where there is no law Intuition of reward in Christian performances no Popery Proofs of this from Scripture from the nature of Hope Faith Gratitude Not always prudent to undertake the highest Martyrdome no conceited Popish perfection yet under no precept to all S. Hieroms words examined Two notions of the word Perfection Some perfection possible in this life and yet capable of growth The law as it signifies the condition of the first Covenant is not now in force with believers Of Christs perfecting the law Every man is not bound to do what is best 1 Cor. 7. 3. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of moral good The saying of Gregory explicated 202 Sect. 9. My answer to a second sort of objection vindicated Loving God with all the heart Adam's love in innocency capable of degrees Perfect love that casts out fear to be had in this life Christ more intense in prayer at one time then another an argument that all is not sinne that is less then the highest 221 Sect. 10. My answer to the last objection of Supererogation A place in S. Cyprian vindicated from the Romanists reading Imputare An act of mercy in God that our works are rewarded Supererogation wherein it consists The Diatribists etymology of the word disproved Erogare Erogatio The Diatribists ways of Supererogating Pride Glorying More reward for eminent uncommanded excellencies superadded to duty The Diatribists charity and confession of us His censure of the Bishops unjust 223. CHAP. VII Of Christmass and other Festivals p. 231 Sect. 1. The observance which is due to the Custome of a Church The Testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine and Isidore 231 Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity 233 Sect. 3. Of Crescens coming into France and Simon Zelotes into England The difference of keeping Easter in the West and East Testimonies for our conversion in the Apostles times Before King Lucius The Diatribists suggestion disproved Britain not converted from Rome 235 Sect. 4. The keeping of Easter in the Apostles times Polycrates's Epistle to Victor The Asiatick way from Philip and John From Philip derived to Britanny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testmony of Socrates against Festivals examined 241 Sect. 5. Midwinter-day The Winter Solstice Julius's Calendar 246 Sect. 6. Festivals not Romish The primitive Churches pure from the heresies that sollicited them The Romish corruptions not fetcht from them 247 Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feast may not be abolisht among us The Diatribists mistake of the question 249 Sect. 8. The Reformation in this Kingdome No imperfection in it in point of Festivals The States joyning in it no disadvantage to the Church 252 Sect. 9. The Lutheran Churches accord in this Morneys wish The Helvetian confession Rivets custome of preaching on the day 254 Sect. 10. Ejecting festivals Separation from the purest times even those of the Apostles Our Churches departure from Rome unjustly paralleld with the departure of sons from our Church 255 Sect. 11. The profaneness objected to the Festival Casting out the Creeds 257 Sect. 12. The Diatribists change of my words his causlesse praise of himself and censure of others 259 Sect. 13. His 2d change of my words Gedeons golden Ephod not appliable to Feasts 260 Sect. 14. Strictures on his 16th § Our Festivals unfitly compared with the Romish How observation of Fèstivals may be a duty of the 5 Commandment The fourth Commandment no way contrary to Christian Festivals Veniall sinnes All mistakes not sinnes Chemnitius not producible against me 261 Sect. 15. Of riot Christian joyes no way contrary to our Festivals Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day Heathen customes cannot be objected Gods judgements vainly urged for arguments The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after Reformation of excess without abolition of the Festival Attempt to reform previous to abolition The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals Cures for diseases excisions only for desperate spreading evils No cards on Christmas day as much strictness on Christmas not more sacredness then on the Lords day No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles Neither Superstition nor hypocrisie in abstaining from cards on Christmas day 265 Sect. 16. Christmas if of the same original with Easter certainly Apostolical However of the practice of the Primitive Church All rendring of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 275 Sect. 17. The encaenia a religious feast instituted by the Jews and approved by Christ vindicated from all his exceptions Marriage feasts Religious feasts cannot be unlawfull if civill be lawfull The feast of Purim a religious feast 277 Sect. 18. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day 283 Sect. 19. Aerius's heresie that Festivals are unlawfull S. Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius's The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of the Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals 286 Sect. 20. Strictures on § 35. The author of the Constitutions a competent testifier when in accord with others Justinus's edict for Festivals reconcileable with the Apostolical usage of
Levitical no longer to continue then the Jewish priesthood of the Tribe of Levi continued and so is long since abolished by Christ and accordingly I never meant and I hope he cannot think I meant to conclude that the same kinds of freewill offerings which were acceptable then that of slaying a Bullock or a Ramme c. do now continue acceptable among Christians 2dly Then the onely question must be of the spontaneousness of the oblations whether that being confestly lawfull and acceptable under the Law it be now unlawfull under Christ or in plain termes whether Gods acceptance of uncommanded oblations when the matter of them is confest to be such as is acceptable to him be to be deemed Levitical and such as being peculiar to the Mosaical oeconomie is not now to be lookt for being abolished under Christ The question thus plainly set his affirmation is too far from the the least shew of probability and so utterly distitute of all proofs either from reason or Scripture as far as he hath here discovered himself and so but a begging of the question in him that thus affirmes that there is no need of my pains in disproving it Yet shall I offer a few considerations to this purpose and the first such as may be of force adhominem to this Diatribist And it shall be the reminding him of his three speciall proofs which he hath brought in his Preface and in his Diatribe to infer the sinfulness of Will-worship viz. the 2d Commandment the summe of which is as he oft saith Gods prescribed worship and all devised worship an excess and so sin against it The words of Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited And to the particular of Festivals the 4th Commandment against which saith he it is an offence in the excesse to observe any other holy day but that one of the Weekly Sabbath Now of these three it is plain that they are all taken out of the words of the Judaical Law and consequently if they were fitly urged to Christians then must it needs follow 1. That they were thus of force against all uncommanded services in the Old Testament and 2. That by way of analogie they still hold under the New Testament which if they do then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribist's present pretensions to his allowing unprescribed uncommanded worship under the Old Testament for how can that be when his proofs against uncommanded worship are all fetcht from the Old Testament to the abolishing in the New Testament what was allowed in the Old for if so how can the analogie hold betwixt the Old and the New in which his three proofs were founded as to the application of them to Christians Which being so the great evidences on which he had founded his hypothesis proving so irreconcileable with his present pretension I shall still give him his choice which part of his method he will adhere to the former or the latter The former he cannot the force of those places in the Mosaical Law for it is manifest by the free-will offerings and now confest by the Diatribists that uncommanded worships were allowed and so lawfull among the Jews And the latter he cannot having formerly supposed in his arguing that the analogie holds in this matter between the two Testaments So that I may now forme a Syllogisme the premises whereof shall be both fetcht out of the Diatribist the Minor from his very words the Major from that on which his arguments are founded thus Whatsoever was lawfull under the Old Testament is lawfull under the New But freewill or uncommanded offerings were lawfull under the Old Testament and then having given me me my premises t will be great unkindness to deny my conclusion therefore uncommanded offerings are lawfull under the New Testament Quod erat demonstrandum A 2d argument against his affirmation shall be the consideration of the liberty and advantages which result to Christians from the abolition of the Mosaical Law That liberty must consist in the taking off not in the imposing of weights and interdicts whereas by this Diatribists affirmation there shall by this abolition of what was Levitical i. e. by this libert y come in a multitude of unprofitable burthens which never lay upon the Jews Whensoever I shall do any thing in the service of God which I am not particularly commanded to do I am presently ensnared guilty of an abominable sin whereas a Jew might by his confession bring a thousand free-will offerings and in each of them be accepted This sure must be directly against one main part of the design of Christ's coming and therefore is not to be admitted in the 2d place 3dly It is sufficiently known and by the Apostle affirmed that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 positive ordinances and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph 2. 15. A Law of Commandments in ordinances which Christ did by his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cancell and naile to the Cross and indeed nothing else is capable of abolition or cancelling But this of the free-will offerings among the Jews is not any Law or Commandments or Ordinances but rather a negation of all those for such is a bare allowance to be deemed and therefore sure this as to the voluntariness of them was none of the things which were abolished by Christ 4thly If it were true which is here said by the Diatribist that the Leviticalness or Ceremoniality of the offerings seems to ly here viz. in the uncommandedness or freedome to offer or not to offer wherein he truly saith that the formality of a freewill offering consists as that is contradistinguished to the commanded offerings then sure the Leviticalness c. would not extend to the commandedness of the other offerings and consequently the commanded offerings under the Law would not be Levitical Which as it is palpably false and contrary to plain Scripture Heb. 9. 1. 20. and elsewhere frequently so it will farther conclude also that the commanded offerings are still in force for by the Leviticalness and Ceremoniality saith he it was that those other are supposed to be now abolished 5 tly Against his conclusion I thus argue Whatsoever was lawfull before the Mosaical Law to mankind and remained lawfull under the Mosaical Law and is not now prohibited by Christ or his Apostles under the Gospell that certainly is now perfectly lawfull and free to Christians But such are freewill offerings Ergo. Of the Major I suppose there will be no doubt And the Minor consisting of three branches is manifest in the first of them among many others by Abel's oblation which the Fathers generally observe not to have been by way of precept from God and t is affirmed by the antient Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pseudo-Clement c. 22. I say not how truly that before the Jews idolatries and high provocations sacrifices themselves were not imposed on or commanded the Jewes but onely left to their free
and commemorate Christ on that day What could passion or interest or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have suggested more unadvisedly then this His 2d dislike and exception is that having formerly founded times or dayes designed to publike worship on the equity of the 4th Commandment I should now devolve the observation of this festival to obedience to the lawes of the Church and so reduce it as a duty to the 5th Commandment and upon this as an especial advantage he is pleased to expatiate But the matter is clear enough and was so till he had taken pains to involve it The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for Gods service generally considered and this or that particular time That God should have some times assigned for his service is of the very law of Nature and so much of morality there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly sabbath in the 4 Commandment Nay farther the 4th Commandment being given to the Iewes for the observing one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set a part one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead And accordingly I suppose it instituted by the Apostles of Christ But then as among the Jewes beside the weekly sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many other times of festivity and fasting some appointed by God himself in the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others instituted by men and yet constantly observed by Gods people and accepted by God and some approved by Christ himself and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment though not by any force of that so now still under the Gospel nothing hinders but that the Church of God by the power left to and deposited with them may ordain Christian feasts and fasts and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek sons of the Church and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worship or spontaneity but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fift Commandment As for that which he addes in this matter that we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day of seven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it for where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment and t is visible what the consequence must be in affirming it even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of the fourth Commandment 2. It is no way pertinent to the matter in hand for supposing Christians allowed six daies for their own works t is yet visible that some of these six may by the free act of particular men be used or by the power of the Christian Church be set a part to Christian uses as well as some days were not only by God himself but by the Governors of the Jewes Judas Maccabeus and others set a part for the publike service of God in the old Testament at which time t is by all confest that the fourth Commandment was in force in all parts of it A second exception I shall note in this § p. 157. when upon these words of mine concerning the possible mistake of the day that that will be pardonable in those that verily think they are not mistaken and that in them that do performe the businesse of the day as compleatly on a mistaken day as on the true the excuse of blamelesse ignorance will wash away greater errors then this he presently replies Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists doctrine of venial sins and upon that occasion is put in minde of Bellarmines defence against the peril of idolatry in the Masse in case the bread be not transubstantiated And then he askes Can any ignorance be blamelesse against the Law of God or wash away any error without the blood of Christ But to this the answer is obvious and the fallacy presently discoverable For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable sins must not be presumed to exclude the blood of Christ those sins are pardonable under the Gospel for which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was paid and such are all sins that are reconcileable with true repentance or the sincerity of a regenerate state But then 2. I am no way assured that it is a sin so much as of ignorance to mistake in the day of Christs birth every mistake is not a sin but only that which is a breach of some law and therefore I suppose it is that the Diatribist was compelled to say Can any ignorance be blamelesse against a law of God But then I professe not to know any law of God against which it is a sin though but of ignorance to mistake that day for the annual day of Christs birth which really is not the day And I now desire to be informed of which of the ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Testament this is a breach When he tells me this I shall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section and answer his instance of so weighty consideration about the very day of the Jews passeover of which he acknowledge that the very day was as strictly commanded as the businesse it self and so the error must be an error against a law whereas he as certainly knowes that this day of Christs birth is by none so much as pretended to be so commanded What remains concerning Chemnitius's charge of Superstition on Papists observation of their holy daies is all answered before it be produced by this one consideration that Chemnitius as a Lutheran is by the Diatribist confest to allow this and other Festivals For then hath he granted all that I contend for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papists Sect. 15. Of riot Christian joyes no way contrary to our Festivals Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day Heathen customes cannot be objected Gods judgments vainly urged for arguments The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after Reformation of excesse without abolition of the Festival Attempt to reform previous to abolition The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals Cures for diseases excisions only for desperate spreading evils No cards on Christmas day as much strictnesse on Christmass not more sacredness then on the Lords day No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles Neither Superstition nor hypocrisie in abstaining from Cards on Christmas day WHat now followes in the 17th § and so on to the 27. is all to the head of
imaginable Sect. 8. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day NOw followes his view of what I had said of the Lords day not instituted by Christ or God himself but by the Apostles without any mention in the New Testament of any prescription or law for the observing of it To this he is very glad to proceed hoping for some great advantage from it let us see what the success will prove And 1. saith he there want not learned men who think that Christ did designe the day But I must demand whether he can imagine that those learned men were in the right in this or have herein exprest any of their learning If he cannot think they have why doth he lose time and gain nothing by the mention of them If he can why doth he not so much as offer their grounds of thus opining when he knowes nor Scripture nor antiquity saith any thing of it and when it were as tolerable in any opposer to offer his opinion also that Christmass day was by Christ himself designed also But then 2dly saith he if the Apostles did institute it that 's more then he dare say of Christmass day And what if it be Doth that prejudge the observing of Christmass supposing it certain as I do suppose that it was either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church Suppose some feasts of the Iewes instituted by God or Moses others by the Church of the Iewes and not by Moses as the Purim and Encaenia Are not these latter as lawfully to be kept to all posterity of the Iews as those former But then 2dly the parallel that I set betwixt the Lords day and Christmass day was only this that as neither of them was found prescribed or by law commanded in Scripture so the want of such law should be no prejudice to the one more then to the other as long as by some other way it appeared of the one that it was derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church as of the other that it came immediatly from the Apostles It being evident that if the Apostles usage gave to one a divine authority the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that though not divine and the latter lawful yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former as the Encaenia were as lawful as the Passover and were obligatory also though not by the same authority By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the observing of Christmass though there should be no certainty of the Apostles instituting it Next he demands If the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ do not their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law I answer that if by institution be meant giving Law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition the predication being identical institution in this sense is prescribing or giving Law But 't is possible that institution of the Lords day by the Apostles may signifie another thing viz. that the Apostles practice assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an institution or a Law with the succeeding Church though indeed the Apostles gave no Law for it or if they did no such Law appears from them The examples of the Apostles are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law And accordingly in this sense also I consent to the Diatribist that their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law and so I shall no way contend with him in this matter Onely upon these grounds I shall demand that whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us through all ages of the Church from the times of the Apostles themselves may be acknowledged also to carry a divine impression upon it And then to omit Episcopacy which he cannot but know hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords day I shall insist onely on the feast of Easter which hath been demonstrated to be derived from the Apostles and so is an instance of all that I pretend in the point of Festivals leaving Christmass day to the equity of proportion and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it Next he proceeds to what I farther say of the no Law that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day In order to which I said that if any thing of that nature be sought there it will rather appear to belong to the annual then weekly feast of the resurrection naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. by some thought to belong to the annual day also Against these he urgeth some authorities of some ancient and modern writers which saith he do not seem to understand these places thus And though t were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies yet I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such Learned men but yielding him all he desires of both these places I must only desire him to remember that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me unlesse he can bring out of the Scripture some other places which are more apodicticall evidences of Apostolicall Law for the weekly Lords day then these are for the annual For the matter is clear all that I was there to prove was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them Sect. 19. Aërius 's herisie that Festivals are unlawfull St Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius ' s. The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of tho Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals IN the 32th § to Epiphanius's censure of Aërius as of an heretick for affirming festivals unlawfull his answer is that all is not heresie that Epiphanius calls so nor all Aërius's opinions justly censured as heretical And so indeed the Diatribist is concerned to think both in respect of this and some other interests that especially of Episcopacy But for the averting of so great a crime it would well become the accused to offer some reason for the clearing himself and not onely to have mentioned the name of Osiander the Epitomizer of the Centuriators wose words are not affirmed to belong to this particular of Festivals and if they did whose authority is sure so Incompetent to weigh with Epiphanius in setting down the sense of the ancient Church that in all reason some evidences should have been annexed to adde weight to him As it is I must not thing strange that they which transcribe that affirmation from Aërius will not allow it to be heresie
more immediately lead into vitious practice I shall never willingly contend with any man or make reply to the contentious But in Doctrines which have immediate influence upon practice t is obligation of charity to indevour the disabusing of all and not to permit or suffer any such fruitfull and noxious error upon my neighbour 8. Under which head because I cannot but place the rejecting of Children from Baptisme and find some objections offered by Mr. Tombes to what I have written on that subject I have therefore drawn a short defence of that Apostolical practice and vindicated my former discourse from his answers and exceptions which being offered to the Reader as soon as the Printer will permit I shall not doubt of his leave to shut up the Palaestra at this time having sufficiently cloyed him with these Spectacles 9. And it is my wish for him that he may continue to have the ease at least of a Spectator that it may be his lot though for some moneths it hath not been mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live peaceably and quietly with all men a felicity of which we are all to be ambitious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a grace that we are all not in prayer onely but by real indevours to contend for and to hold it fast untill it be violently wrested from us 10. As it is I have with patience fortified my self for the present undertaking and to make it also as supportable as may be to others abstained from transcribing the entire severall Sections of his Diatribae and onely repeated as much as exacts answer from me not omitting as far as my wit would serve me any the least particular which can be thought to have energy against any of those things that are asserted by me in those Tracts save only when the same things once answered have again whether in words or sense been repeated by him THE Contents of the severall CHAPTERS and Sections contained herein CHAPTER I. OF Mr. C. his Title Pages page 1 Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endless Genealogies 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9. The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse 1 Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8 9. Gal. 4. 9 10. Deum sic colere quomodo scipsum colendum praecepit Christmass no irrational custome 3 CHAP. II. Of Mr. C. his Preface p. 4 Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes Comparing of Superstition and Wil-worship to Heresie Accounting Superstition our virtue 4 Sect. 2. Of being too Religious of the intension or degree The Messalians Neglect of Charity of particular callings Eccl. 7. 16. Of multitude of Ceremonies Too many Ceremonies no argument of too much but of too little Religion 6 Sect. 3. Mr. C. his distinctions of being too religious multiplied unnecessarily Frequency of duty if secured from other neglects no excess nor criminous Prayer a branch of Natural worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excess in trust c. as well as in Prayer The Species of worship and the circumstances thereof The wide difference between these Times of Prayer not limited by Scripture Set days of worship Gestures Prostration Mr. C. his 3. proofs examined Deut. 4. 2. considering Apoc. 22. 19. A view of Aquinas's doctrine in this matter 8 Sect. 4. Excess of Religion Super statutum Addition to the Rule Doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. Act. 25. 29. Six concessions Superstitiosus Worshipping of Angels Superstitum cultus Slavish fear Religion in Epicurus Fear of punishment in sons in wicked men The necessity thereof Dogmatizing Placing more virtue in things then belongs to them 20 Sect. 5. The innocence of Wil-worship Analogie with voluntary oblationsunder the law Seeming Contradiction The authority of Chrysostome and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment Reducing all sins to the Decalogue Addition to the rule Worship of Angels Other sins beside that of Dogmatizing 32 Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmass Festival Of Church Laws 38 CHAP. III. Of Superstition peculiarly And first of his Prolegomenon on that Subject p. 41 Sect. 1. Answer to § 1. The method used to find the meaning of the word 41 Sect. 2. Answer to § 2. Amesius's definition The matter of the 4 first Commandments The affirmative part of the 2d. Commandment The Diatribist's misadventure about Duty in the midst No prohibition of either holy days in the 4th Commandment Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. The Rubenites altar Josh 22. Naaman's altar Christmass Festival parallel to it The excesses in each Commandment 42 Sect. 3. The species of Superstition Idolatrie belongs to the 2d. Commandment Superstition to the first It differs from Wil-worship The meaning of Illegitimate worship in Aquinas His opinion of Ecclesiastical rites Barbarous ceremonies of Baals worship belong not to the 2d. Commandment Holy days before Popery Two antient Testimonies for them The Jews scrupulosity in not resisting on the Sabbath day 49 Sect. 4. The Diatribist's method and caution in setting down the species of Superstition 53 CHAP. IV. Of the particular exceptions of the Diatribist to the Tract of Superstition p. 55 Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt 55 Sect. 2. The nature of the word Excess of fear among the Epicureans Superstitio from Super and sto not statuo Aquinas misreported 56 Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the heathens for Religion so in Hesychius and Phavorinus 58 Sect. 4. False worship is not Wil-worship Imposition of hands 59 Sect. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. The Athenians the most devout of all the Greeks 60 Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25. Festus's scorn fals on the Jews not on Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own not theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accusation Jesus put under the notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Festus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diatribists objections answered Superstition for Religion simply 62 Sect. 7. The method of search for the original notion of the word Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens Among them Superstition all one with Religion Plutarch of the Sabbatick rest Sacrificing children to Moloch was not to the true God Jer. 32. 35. Lev. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worship The glosses of the Etymologist and Phavorinus 66 Sect. 8. Superstition always ill but not always excess Probations from the use of words among heathens The Quaere of Divorce vindicated Superstitions not reprocht in the Romans by Polybius Ignorance not presently Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. The Israelites worshipping the Calfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitiosus noting excess 70 Sect. 9. The Diatribist's concession of the innocence of unprescribed ceremonies and so of all that is demanded His censure of himself and Chamier Authority in a Church to institute Ceremonies Abstaining from ceremonies because commanded by men or abused by Papists 77 Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections
them The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmass day Objections against the 25. of December answered The controversie in Chrysostome about the day not the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His words full for the Apostolicalness of both 289 Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion Strictures on some passages in it 292 AN ACCOUNT OF THE 3 ex DIATRIBE CONCERNING Superstition Wil-worship and Christmas Festivall CHAP. I. Of Mr C. his Title Pages Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endlesse Genealogies 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9. The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse AND first the Title page will deserve a cursory view especially the place of Scripture wherewith he hath chosen to adorn it Col. 2. 4. 8. by which the Reader is directed to look on his threefold exercitation as he is pleased to call it with Dr. H. as an especiall antidote against that Philosophy c. of which S. Paul forewarns men to take heed in those two verses On this occasion I shall not need inquire what provocation Mr. C. had to express such unkindness to and jealousie of Philosophy certainly not the same that S. Paul then had among his Colossians but onely remind the Reader what is elsewhere shew'd more largely that the Philosophy there branded by the Apostle was that which the Gnosticks divinity was too full of taken out of Pythagoras and the Greek Poets Antiphanes Hesiod and Philistion and especially Orpheus his Theologie or Genealogies of the Gods and so promiscuously styled by the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philosophy and vain deceipt in this admonition to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fables and endless genealogies how out of Night and Silence comes forth Chaos c. in his directions to Timothy 1 Tim. 1. 4. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolish questions and genealogies in his Epistles to Titus c. 3. 9. And then how conveniently this was accommodated to any or all those three discourses concerning Superstition Wil-worship Christmas Festival must be discerned by his answer to all or any of these few questions 1. Whether any Gnostick principle of Theologie hath been discovered in any of those three Tracts which he hath undertaken to chastise 2. Whether it be a piece of Apostatical or heretical pravity a branch of heathenisme or Gnosticisme to maintain the celebration of Christs Nativity to have nothing criminous in it either under the head of Superstition or Wil-worship 3. Whether all institutions of the Church though in themselves never so blameless are yet to be lookt on as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acts of dispoiling Christians and little less then Sacrileges and whether they are all comprehended under that style of Traditions of men and rudiments of the world in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Christ of which the Apostle so carefully warnes the Colossians Lastly whether all probable or concludent nay even demonstrative discourse be to be warded and averted as deceipts and beguilings because capable of that title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle there useth whether we render them literally probabilities of speech or with our translation inticing words When M. C. hath accommodated any satisfactory answer to these few questions all or at least some one of them he may then be qualified to attempt justifying the charitableness of his title page and the propriety of his select Scripture but till then he may give his Reader leave to question one of them Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8 9. Gal. 4. 9 10. Deum sic colere quomodo seipsum colendum praecepit Christmas no irrational custome THe same reason I have to put in my exceptions to the title pages of his two other exercitations and in like manner 1. to demand how commodiously the words of Christ Mat. 15. 8 9. condemning their worship as vain which teach for doctrines the commandments of men are affixt to the second Diatribe concerning Wil-worship when he cannot but know that that Text is particularly handled in the first leaf of the treatise of Wil-worship and demonstrated neither to belong to humane laws in general nor to any institutions of the Christian Church but onely to the dogmatizing of Pharisaical hereticks and particularly their urging some inventions of their own as commanded and under obligation by divine precept now when the very Judaical commanded rites were so suddenly to be laid aside nailed to the crosse solemnly cancelled and abolisht by Christ And 2. no farther to demand his reasons but to admire his constancy to himself that before the Diatribe of Christmas and other sure Christian festivals he hath thought meet to prefix that text Gal. 4. 9 10. of observing dayes moneths times years so peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Sabbaths New Moons Anniversaries and Jubiles but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of his Resurrection To which we shall associate his two Latine sentences the one out of S. Austine of worshipping God as he hath commanded the other out of S. Cyprian of the vanity of irrational customes and remind him that we design no other worship of God upon Christmas day but such as we are sure he hath commanded at all times that of prayer and thanksgiving c. and that the incarnation of Christ was a competent reason to found a custome of commemorating it after this manner we shall finde a perfect harmony and consent in all his discords and that is all I shall return to his frontispices designed to infuse prejudices into the Reader to blast before-hand what he meant to answer CHAP. II. Of M. C. his Preface Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes Comparing of Superstition and Wil-worship to Heresie Accounting Superstition our virtue T Is now more then time that we think of entring and yet there is a Preface still behind which expects to be taken notice of as being a very friendly recapitulation of the grounds of my great mistakes the unhappy causes of those my miscarriages which he hath discovered in the insuing Exercitations But I that am not yet by all his Diatribe so instructed or improved as to discern one real misadventure in those discourses find it impossible for me to be edified by this his charity I must be shewed my disease before Hippocrates himself can point me out the causes of it and therefore my briefest return to his preface is but to beseech him to reserve his discourse of causes till the effects shall be so visible as to call for it and if this be not a sufficient reply to all of it What is behind will easily be referred to this one head the injustices and mistakes of the author of it which I shall but briefely recite to him First that he hath thought fit to compare Superstition and Wil-worship as they are the subjects of my discourses with Heresie whereas 1. Superstition in the proper notation
pursues virtue as the one way to it could he justly say this were carnal prudence in him and sinfull The beauty of holyness is a thing seldom discerned but by the experience and practice of it and in that case sure there is need of promises to excite and attract to that practice yea and of terrors to drive and the Gospel makes use of both these and so doth Faith which is the Spiritual not carnal prudence And indeed if the beauty of holyness may first be lookt on and that is one promise but that a lesse perfect one and to be injoyed in this life then why may not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or eternal reward which is also the beauty of holyness and that a perfect beauty a purity from sin as well as immunity from burthens and miseries a wiping away spots as well as tears be first lookt on also Briefly I shall demand of the Diatribist whether gratitude in a regenerate man who hath received from Christ the great benefits of election and redemption and justification may not be allowed to incite and stir up duty If it may I demand again whether the reward decreed to him in his election be not lookt on by him and whether that do not excite this gratitude If it do whether this be a carnal gratitude and the mercenary way of the Romanists But I must not allow my self farther to expatiate on such digressions The Diatribists divinity in this point is but suitable to what formerly he gave us a taste of in the passage of slavish fear and both together are exemplified to us by the woman that went about the city with a firebrand in one hand and a bason of water in the other saying that one was to burn up heaven and the other to quench the fire of hell that neither hope nor fear promises nor terrors might have the least influence on her but pure ethereal love do the whole work And all that I shall need adde is only this that still there is an heaven and hell in Scripture and all duty is not quite rarified and converted into this love and many good Christians there are which make use of both these and offend against no precept of Christ in doing so But I have at large handled this point of looking at the promises in our obedience not only in a Sermon on 1 Cor. 7. 1. but more punctually in an addition to the Pract. Catech. now in the Press p. 416. c. and so shall not here any farther inlarge upon it My answers there to the forementioned objection are fitter for the Diatribist to combat with I proceed therefore to consider what replies he makes to them To my first answer which was this That though prudence doth advise to this of aspiring to perfection yet doth it not lay any command so as not to obey it will be presently sinful a thing which had oft been proved formerly by the example of S. Pauls advises when he had no commands for sure Prudence may well imitate S. Paul herein and do so too To this I say he replies by bare affirming but not proving or offering the least proof for the contrary only when he mentions the perfection of virtue he addes required by the commands of God as if the highest degree of virtue were under command which he knowes is the thing which through this whole debate is denied by me and the proofs and reasons of my denying it given at large and then what a begging of the question is it to affirm it here without any tender or overture of probation To my second answer then which was by considering the want of strength in some men which makes it not prudent in them to undertake the steep way of the greatest perfection founded in the words of Christ He that can receive it let him receive it He replies by asking what perfection I mean which will be dangerous to undertake as a steep way that which is required in the commandments of the Law and Gospel I answer t were a contradiction and madness in me when I speak of perfection which is not under command to mean that which is required in the commandments It is certain I mean uncommanded degrees of virtue the undertaking those courses be it of virginity austerities abundant labourings Martyrdome it self when either I am not competently furnished with strength from God for the going through with them or have not any reason to perswade my self that I shall be so furnished For then if indeed I have not strength the very undertaking such heights may prove treacherous and precipitious to me And that this is my meaning he at last takes notice and fills his margent with proofs of it both from this and from another Tract and when he hath taken all that pains to finde out my meaning which I professe to be it and thought it had been obvious to any man before he fairly takes his leave of it again hath nothing to say to it but returns to that perfection of holyness which saith he is the duty of all and all that I need return to him is this that if it be so it is not that perfection I speak of viz. virginity c. for that I hope is not every mans duty but at at the utmost his who can receive it This he is resolved not to take notice of and accordingly proceeds and when I say that even the precept of God may sometimes interpose and make it unlawful for us to aspire to the most perfect state meaning evidently virginity martyrdome c. he saith this is as strange and again in the rear by way of exclamation What strange divinity is this demanding whether Gods precepts cross one another when he cannot but see that my whole discourse and process is founded in the supposition of that evident truth that these states of perfection are not under any precept of Gods and so that the precept which shall cross the undertaking of them is far from crossing any precept of God After this repeated exclamation and wonderment he is content at length as he saith to hear me speak and explain my self And my explanation being by supposition of a duty of our calling awaiting us on the one side and an opportunity of martyrdome on the other and that exemplified by S. Cyprian's case that then obedience is better then the richest sacrifice here he findes place for triumph and ovation By this t is evident saith he he means not perfection of holiness according to the commandments of God but a conceited perfection of martyrdome as Papists do That I who speak through that whole Tract of uncommanded acts should not mean that perfection which is according to as that signifies required by the Commandments of God is too evident to be any special 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or discovery at this time now toward the conclusion of his view of that Discourse Of that therefore he hath my free confession But if
Acquirable perfection may be and some degree of it is under precept but unacquirable perfection is not Christs easie yoke is not now made up to us of impossible precepts 2dly That perfection in one of the places mentioned by him appears to be mercifulness and the holiness in the other that of S. Peter being opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the former lusts when they were in ignorance respects either that sort of purity particularly or however that more universal purity which is now more severely required of all Christians in an higher degree then it had been under the Jewish oeconomy and of either of these I never doubted but they are now under Evangelical precept But then still that is nothing to the higher degrees of those or other Christian virtues which all this while we speak of No more is that which follows from the Doctor himself saying that Christ came to perfect the Law So he might do and yet leave some degrees of mercy c. free and not under precept as hath oft been said I shall not now take leasure to examine with what truth he addes that that perfection which Christ came to adde is still the perfection of the Law It is true it was the requiring of what the law had not required and so the adding more to it and perfecting it as a law requiring all that ever shall be required of men by law or precept But this concludes nothing against higher degrees of this very perfection being still left free and not under law the onely thing which now he contends against His 3d proof is taken from the account I give in the Pract. Cat. p. 95. of the lightnesse and supportableness of Christs burthen 1. in taking off the burthen of unprofitable ceremonies 2. in taking away the damning power of every least sin c. 3. in giving greater strength From whence he concludes It was not then that he required not perfect holinesse under the Gospel I answer 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this conclusion can with no Logick be thus deduced being à testimonio negativè It is very possible there might be other reasons beside those I there named My mention of three being sufficient for the matter then in hand did no way prejudge or exclude more But then 2. I grant that this now mentioned neither was nor well could have been any part of my account of the easiness and supportableness of Christs Evangelical burthen above that legal of Moses because it was common both to the law of Moses and of Christ that there were some degrees of perfection which were by neither of them under Moses's law had place for free-will offerings as well as Christs nay Christs hath put some things under precept as I conceive which were not under precept by Moses's law in this one respect there lies more weight on a Christian then did formerly on a Iew but that is abundantly recompensed by other respects which this is not a season to inlarge upon Having thus answered all his objections in this matter it will I hope be consequent that he hath not yet demonstrated the truth of that assertion which from what he hath said he assumes to be apparently and visibly true viz. that every man is bound to do that which is best because the law and the Gospel also require perfection of obedience in every commandment For to this I have oft replied that both of them require perfect obedience to all that either of them requires which notwithstanding there are still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under both which no precept either of law or Gospel requires or puts under necessity of obligation to any The falseness of that proposition that every man is bound to do that which is best I had formerly evidenced by two means 1. the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 38. he that marries doth well but he that marrieth not doth better 2. by this that the best being a superlative supposes the positive which is lower then that to be yet good c. To these he will now apply answer To the first that well and better there do not refer to moral goodness but worldly good for the preventing of troubles in those afflicted and persecuting times But this answer will be soon shaken asunder 1. by considering that as the well and better do certainly belong to the same kind of good so it is visible that the well cannot belong to the worldly but moral good and then consequently the better must do so too That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth well belongs to moral goodness is evident by v. 28. where advising them that are loosed from mariage not to mary he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but and if or though thou do mary thou sinnest not and if the virgin mary she sinneth not What can be more clear then that the doing well is not sinning and sure that is a moral not only a worldly good Nay 2. the Apostle is as expresse that the marying is quite contrary to the worldly good for having said that they that mary sin not he addes immediately v. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but such shall have trouble to the flesh and what can be more contrary to worldly good But yet farther 3. the Apostle sets down the advantages of not marrying v. 32. the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord how he may please the Lord and the unmaried woman in like manner that she may be holy both in body and spirit v. 34. whereas the maried man cares for the things of the world how he may please his wife and the woman in like manner how she may please her husband And then are not these spiritual not barely worldly advantages and is not the holyness of both body and spirit and the caring for the things of the Lord a greater moral or rather spiritual good then the bare caring for the things of the world to please a yoke-fellow I hope I need say no more on this nor sure on that which he next addes that if the person have not the gift of continence it is then not only good but necessary for him to mary for he knowes that as S. Paul spake of him that had that gift when he saith he doth better so I that only cited S. Pauls words must be resolved to speak also But as long as of him that hath that gift i. e. hath power of his own will it is true that if he mary he doth well i. e. sinneth not but yet doth better if he do not mary it is evident that I have all that I pretend to and certainly this is given me by S. Pauls words To my 2d argument that the best being superlative supposes the positive to be good he replies I hope the Doctor will not deny but works done by Faith are good and yet that they are not perfect in this life i. e. come short of what we are bound to by the Gospel will he
law concerning it The short is Socrates saw that several Nations had their several customes of keeping Easter some saith he from Iohn others from Peter and Paul setting down the very story as we have given it out of Eusebius and from thence he collects how truly it matters not that no Apostle had given any binding law to all Christians concerning it And so I that speak only of the practice Apostolical and not at all of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanding it by law am no way incommodated by this testimony And for any more then so practice and custome Apostolical it will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any evidence for the weekly Christian sabbath or Lords day sure the New Testament hath no where any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving of law concerning it His 3d proof taken from the difference of the observation of it in the Eastern and Western Church which saith he makes it evident that it was not instituted by the Apostles hath sure now been competently answered for though that difference conclude against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or appointment of the day by universal law yet it no way prejudgeth the practice Apostolical or the derivation of the several customes from this original How true or pertinent to his purpose that is which followes that the observation of Easter hath better antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical doth already sufficiently appear the Apostles practice for the one being so evident on all hands by the confession both of the Eastern and Western Christians the several practices being derived from several Apostles that there can be no doubt in that matter And then the analogy holding and the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian festival commemorative of Christs resurrection to another commemorative of his birth or his ascension will certainly justifie the lawfulnesse of the observation though the antiquity should not equally be pleadable for it And so I hope I have fully cleared and vindicated the concludency of this argument Sect. 5. Midwinter-day The Winter Solstice Julius 's Calendar NExt he proceeds to view the argument drawn from the title which our ancient records give Christmasse day calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Midwinter-day and as I now finde in other Saxon monuments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Midwinter-mass or feast and with this he is pleased to refresh himself and to be cheerful How sweetly all agree c. and then to make offer of some answer But the truth is he hath not made any the least discovery by those answers that he adverted at all to that one thing wherein alone all the force of the argument was placed I shall therefore repeat it again for him The Winter solstice falling now many days earlier then the 25th of December the acknowledged day of Christs birth we are in reason to believe that at the time when that title of Midwinter-masse was bestowed on this festival the Sun entred into Capricorn i. e. the winter solstice fell if not upon yet very neer to the 25th of December And then this will drive it very high up to the Apostles and our Saviours time at the year of whose birth though as the learned exactly calculate it the Sun entred Capricorn on the 24th of December at Rome yet t is certain that Iulius Caesar ordering the Calendar 43 years before that and believing that in his time it was as Hipparchus had said viz. that the solstices had anticipated 8. days for so in his time Hipparchus had observed he placed the solstices on the eighth of the Calends i. e. on the 24th of Iune and 25th of December In consonance whereto the difference being yet not great the first Christians might well call this feast Mid-winter masse being indeed so neer the solstice then though the farther we descend from those first times the less exactness of truth we shall still finde in that appellation Now to this Mr. C. is not pleased to make the least word of reply and so hath not qualified himself to expect any syllable of return from me to his 7th § Only I shall tell him for his utmost satisfaction 1. That my argument no way depends on the falling of Iohn Baptists day on Mid-summer day and only mentioned it to shew the agreement betwixt them 2. That if Christmas day were not celebrated till the end of the 2d Century it could not with any propriety be called Mid-winter masse for An. 200. the Winter solstice was certainly at a pretty distance from the 25. of December 3. That though now Mid-winter day be a fortnight sooner then the 25. of December yet in the Apostles times it was not so and so that is an argument for not against the observation of it in or neer the times of the Apostles for else it could not with any truth be called Midwinter day By this time I hope the Diatribists eyes may be opened to discerne some force in this argument and how nothing he hath replied to it Sect. 6. Festivals not Romish The primitive Churches pure from the heresies that sollicited them The Romish corruptions not fetcht from them IN the next place he proceeds to my two inferences the former of which being only this that the antiquity or immemorial usage of any festival in our nation doth no way argue that it hath any of the corruptions of the Romane See adhering to it but the contrary It is freely granted by him And then I may for once congratulate the unexpected successe of that Paper For it seems the use of Festivals is not Romish and Antichristian on the score of which he certainly knowes some who have cast them out and I foresee not how he will ever approve himself to them again after this one confession However he will make no delay to make some reparations For though festivals have none of the corruptions of the Roman See adhering to them yet saith he they may have too much of the corruption of those Churches wherein they were first invented corruptions which crept into those Churches not long after the Apostles days and the Romish religion is a bundle of most of those corruptions To which I answer that nothing could be more unjust at once and improbable then what is here without either proof or diffidence suggested against the most ancient Primitive and next to Apostolical Church That there were many foul and dangerous errors which very early even in the Apostles days solicited and infested the Church there is no doubt that impure detestable sink of the Gnosticks and the several sorts of hereticks which all joined together under that title But then t is most evident that the Governors of each Church by the strength of that depositum committed to them by the Apostles used all care to secure their flocks from such pests as these and were by Gods blessing successful in it noted branded expulst these hereticks and kept the Catholike Church intire from their corruptions And
there appears not to be any one First then his answer is that there were three feasts of dedication and I cannot but know that learned men are divided of which it 's here meant But how can this first answer be of any avail when I that took notice as he confesses of the three made it evident that the place was meant of the third that instituted in the Maccabees and the Diatribist cannot deny but it's probable so it was and offers not to answer the proofs or to pretend ought for either of the two former against this His 2d answer is that granting it to be the last yet there are reasons to think it was not a religious Festival but a civil as the feast of Purim seems to be Esth 9. 21 22. But it is not imaginable the Diatribist should thus think or be perswaded by these reasons His reason is from the words 1 Mac. 4. 59. They ordered it should be kept yearly with mirth and gladnesse adding that though it be said v. 56. they offered burnt-offerings yet that was v. 53. according to the law and so was worship commanded Now truly this I thought had been sufficient proof that this was a religious feast and it was great surprize to me to see it brought to inferre the contrary For what greater evidence can there be brought of a religious feast then this of which out of the Story he hath set down a considerable portion but lies in the Maccabees more completely thus Now on the 25th day of the Ninth moneth which is called the Moneth Casleu in the 148th year they rose up betimes in the morning and offered sacrifice according to the law upon the now altar of burnt-offering which they had made look at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it even upon that was it dedicated with songs citherns harps cymbals Then all the people fell upon their faces worshipping praising the God of heaven who had given them good successe and so they kept the dedication of the altar 8 days and offered burnt-offerings with gladnesse and sacrificed the sacrifice of deliverance and praise c. and then v. 59. Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Israel ordained that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year by the space of eight days from the 25 day of the moneth Casleu with mirth and gladnesse And now I shall ask the Diatribist Is there any reason to think this was not a religious festival nay is it possible for him to give any account why in setting down the passages of it he should omit the peoples falling upon their faces worshipping and praising the God of heavens and sacrificing the sacrifices of deliverance and praise together with Judas and his brethren and the congregation which is not God as hath hitherto been pretended it ought to be from the 2d and 4th Commandment ordaining that it should be so kept for the future from year to year Do not those passages take away all possibility of doubting either of the religiousnesse of the Festival or the institution by man and not by God And is there now against all this any force in the words v. 53. according to the law which the Diatribist confronts to the mention of burnt-offerings as an answer or reason why that which was kept with burnt-offerings was yet no religious feast May not burnt-offerings according to the law such as the Mosaical law approves of yea and commands to be used for burnt-offerings be used in a religious feast what was ever suggested by any disputer with lesse appearance of truth or probability He knowes that in the free will offerings there were yet laws given by Moses according to which they were to offer and why should it not be so in a feast ordained by Judas would he imagine that illegal offerings should have been sought out for it to constitute it a religious feast Here sure was matter of conviction to the Diatribist I shall not inquire why it did not prevail with him Only of this I am sure that if this one instance had been permitted to appear what indeed it is and now is visibly demonstrated to be a religious feast instituted by the Church of the Jewes and not by God and yet approved by him there can never need any farther evidence to confute and demonstrate the vanity of all his three Diatribae of Superstitition Will-worship Festivals his suggestions from superstatutum from additions to the word from the 2d and 4th Commandments from Col. 2. whether as it mentions Will-worship or the Commands of men Our Christmas festivity supposing the utmost that he can wish that it was not observed by the Apostles but instituted by the Church be two or three hundred years after Christ being perfectly answerable to this of the dedication and so demonstrated by analogie with that to be approved by Christ And therefore it was but necessary that this evidence should by all convenient means be rendred uneffectual All the unhappinesse of it was that the matter would not yield any such and so the Diatribist was to content himself with such as we have now discovered And because he could not but foresee it possible that they would be thus discovered and that yet it will be more then said that it was a religious feast and so observed he therefore hath a 3d answer in reserve Then saith he it may be fairly suggested that they went beyond their commission in making this feast annual and perpetual which neither Solomon nor Zorobabel did theirs for ought we read Here are again the clear symptomes of a desperate cause that fain would catch at some supports but is forsaken of all T is evident Judas and his brethren and the whole congregation ordained that it should be kept thus from year to year 1 Mac. 4. 59. and as evident that it was 〈◊〉 observed by the Jews even in Christs time and as evident still that Christ was present at that feast and so approved of and confirmed it Ioh. 10. 23. And yet saith he it may be fairly suggested that they went beyond their commission in making this feast annual what again could have been said more unluckily then this more contrary to expresse evidence in every degree of it Adde to this 2. that even both of the two other feasts of dedication at the erecting the Temple in Solomons and reedifying it in Zorobabels time if they were annual were fully parallel with this and that they were so was by this Diatribist affirmed to be the opinion of learned men in this very page who saith he interpreted the place of John 10. some of the one some of the other of these which t were ridiculous for them to doe if it were not annual Nay lastly supposing these two were never observed above once a peece I shall now demand why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often or annually and