Ecclesiasticas praesertim quae fidei non officiunt ita observandas ut à majoribus traditae sunt nec aliorum consuetudinem aliorum contrario more subverti I would briefely admonish you that Ecclesiastical traditions especially such as offend not the faith are so to be observed as they are delivered by our Ancestors nor must the custome of some be subverted by the contrary custome of others And yet higher in the same Epistle Vnaquaeque provincia praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province esteem the precepts of their Ancestors as Apostolical Laws i. e. certainly pay observance to them though they be not of Apostolical institution So Isidore l. 2. de Eccl Offic c. 43. Nec disciplina in his melior est gravi prudentique Christiano nisi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Ecclesiam ad quam devenerit There is no better rule in such things for a grave and prudent Christian then to do in that manner as he sees the Church do to which he comes Store of suffrages might be heaped up on this occasion these few may suffice to justifie all that I had said in that first § Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity THE 2d § had proposed one argument for the antiquity of this usage among us founded in the adversaries suggestion against it The adversaries generally accuse the Christmass Festivity for some heathenish mixtures reteined in it From which if it were true or however from the concession of those that affirmed it I conceived an argument might be drawn that therefore it was to be taken as granted that this usage was continued among us from the time of our first conversion from heathenism And I cannot yet see how this inference can be avoided For how can any heathen usage adhere to this Festivity if all heathen customes were laid aside long before this Festival were observed Can it be imagined that after the ejecting of heathenism and the solemn abolition of all their feasts Saturnalia and the like when Christianity had gotten the possession there should still continue among them those adherent rites of their heathen feasts so many accidents without their subjects Or that Christians that had long since renounced heathenism and at length received this Christian feast should ransack their heathen rituals for ceremonies wherewith to adorn it But this it seems is of no force or as he saith no way constringent with this Diatribist For saith he they might be added some good while after the first conversion of some part of this Island the better to win the rest to a liking of Christian religion by conforming to them in the celebration of festivals As the like was done to win the Jews in observing the old sabbath Pentecost c. But sure there is little force in this evasion For 1. it is by this answer confest that as to some parts of this Island my argument is of force and that in those this festival was introduced as early as their Christianity and if that may be granted me I shall contend for no more by this medium but think I have gained a very fair confession for the antiquity of this usage in this Church that this festivity was thus early introduced among us even as soon if not before Christianity had gotten possession of this whole Nation Meanwhile that the Nation was not converted the several parts of it together I mean not every person of every part but some of all or that there was any such interstitium or interval considerable betwixt the conversion of some part of this Island and the rest of it this is incumbent on the Diatribist to prove or else the argument remains in full force to the whole Nation as well as to any part of it And for this he hath offered no proof and so hath yielded the force of my argument when he went about to refute it 2dly The example of the Christians complying with the Jews will stand him in as little stead for when was it that the Christians thus complied with the Jews or that they retain'd their old sabbath out of that design of compliance with them Was it not at the time of the first conversion of the Jews to Christianity Can it be imagined that the Jews were a good while before converted to the faith and to the doctrine of the abolition of the sabbath and then some good while after that their conversion the observation of their sabbath should be reduced expostliminio Would not this be a constringent argument to any gainsayer to prove that baptism was introduced at the first beginnings of Christianity because baptisme is known to be a custome taken from the Jews And so sure of the sabbath and the like If any space or interval had come in after the planting of Christianity among the Jews it is no way probable that the sabbath once laid aside as a ceremony naild to the cross of Christ would ever after have been recalled and observed among Christians only at the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian though they were not taught by Christianity and so some others from the heathen also t is possible and imaginable but t is no way supposeable after the space of many years when heathenisme with all its rites and adherents had long ago been cast out And let this serve for his 2d § The matter is not so weighty being but an argumentum ad homines as to deserve any greater length of discourse to vindicate it 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 COncerning the first planting of Christianity in this Nation by some Apostle or Apostolical person what was said with competent probability out of our histories is considered by the Diatribist in the next place but nothing said or offered to be proved by him which may exact answer from me the whole matter especially being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business of Festivals only some passages of his must be shortly noted As 1. when from my saying that Crescens his being in France removes all improbability from those histories that record the plantation of Christianity in these Islands in the Apostles times he seems to believe it my opinion that Crescens came over hither for so saith he the Doctor would have it and proves it out of Scripture which very thing he knowes I absolutely disclaim and only conclude it as credible that some other Apostle or Apostolical person should so early come over hither and plant the Faith as that Crescens should come into France in S. Pauls dayes which yet the French generally believe that he did and have received it by tradition and the words of Scripture may very
his 24 Chapter gives us the full debate of it in the Epistle of Polycrates to Victor This Polycrates was the eighth Bishop of Ephesus and was then 65 years old which reacheth up very high within 30 years of S. Johns time and he set down and manifested the tradition to be Apostolical expressely deducing it from two of the Apostles Philip one of the twelve which saith he died at Hierapolis and John the beloved disciple of Christ who lived and died at Ephesus adding to these Polycarp Bishop and Martyr of Smyrna and Thraseas Bishop and Martyr of Eumenia Sagaris of Laodicea Papyrius and Melito of Sardis All which saith he observed the fourteenth day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keeping exactly the Canon of faith and no way varying from it Here it is undeniably evident that the Asiatick custome was by Polycrates and all the Bishops of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consented to this Epistle of his fetcht from two of the twelve Apostles S. Philip and S. John And if that which our stories tell us of Philips being in France and sending Joseph of Arimathea and others into Britain be to be understood of Philip the Apostle as Gildas Albanicus expressely affirmes then have we a clear account of the derivation of this custome of keeping Easter in this Nation from Philip to our first Christians just as Polycrates in Asia deduces it from the same Philip. And that affords us an irrefragable instance of the observation of Christian festivals among us not only from the first plantation of Christianity among us but even from the practice of the very Apostles themselves which was the utmost that I could pretend to in this matter 8. And it is farther observable that Pope Victor of Rome though he was willing to have proceeded with greater rigor against the Asiaticks even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cut off or excommunicate all the Provinces and Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as heterodox yet never questions the truth of Polycrates's affirmations concerning his receiving the custome from those Apostles And indeed the other Bishops assembled were not for such severity but for peace and unity and charity with these fellow Christians and reprehended Victor severely for his thoughts of severity And the Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor is very considerable to this purpose who though he resolved on Victors conclusion for the keeping it on the Lords day only yet he is absolutely against excommunicating the Asiaticks upon this very ground that these Churches of God did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe the tradition of ancient or original custome and he farther tells him that the Bishops before him had never broken peace with any on occasion of this difference instancing in Polycarp who came to Rome in Anicetus's time and as Anicetus could not perswade him to leave his custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having observed it alwaies according to the practice of John the disciple of the Lord and the rest of the Apostles with whom he had conversed So neither could Polycarp perswade Anicetus to leave his way and yet they communicated one with another Here again by Irenaeus his own confession who was for the Western custome the Eastern was practised by John and the rest of the Apostles sure more then one with whom Polycarp had conversed Lastly There is no doubt all this while of that which the Western pretended for their custome that they had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Apostolical tradition saith Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning saith Nicephorus and that expressely from S. Peter the Apostle which still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian festival and all others are to be rated by that standard was observed and celebrated by the Apostles and so is the evincing of all that I need to pretend to for the vindicating of that Resolution of the Quaere concerning the Festivals of the Church What now can be invented by way of reply to this argument thus inforced I profess not to be able to foresee what he hath thought fit to offer for the proof of the contrary I shall now very briefly consider And 1. saith he there is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor any ground to found it on But to this 1. It is sufficient to answer that there is small virtue in this argument from Scripture negative 2dly That the Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast which by circumstances is applied to the feast of Easter is some be it acknowledged a lesse weighty ground in Scripture for the observation 3dly That the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. is some farther ground whether that signifie the weekly or annual Lords day If it be the annual there is then a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days and if it should be the weekly yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day which we know is to commemorate the resurrection as it is evident that the weekly friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week 4thly If the Scripture should give us no kinde of mention of this yet seeing it hath otherwise appeared from the most ancient and undoubted records of the Church that Easter was observed by the Apostles by Peter and Paul in one manner by John and Philip in another what place of doubt or question can there be in this matter What he addes in the close of his first reason that the Apostles were so farre from instituting these as Christian feasts that they do expressely repeal them and cry them down hath not the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4. 10. His 2d proof is from Socrates the Historian saying that the Apostles were not solicitous to appoint any festival days at all therefore not this of Easter To this I answer that Socrates's words do not at all deny this to have been the practice of the Apostles only his conceit is that neither Christ nor his Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded to observe this by any law and again that they intended not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make laws of festival days referring the original of them to custome which varied in several regions as appeared to him by that difference betwixt the Asiatick and Western Christians from whence his conclusion or as in the same matter he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his conjecture was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feast of Easter among all sorts of people had a peculiar different observation from some custome because none of the Apostles had made any
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
worship which saith he is too much and such a man may be too religious And this being the onely product of his distinction is as I intimated so far from clearing that it is the perplexing and intrieating the business which was formerly clear enough the leading the Reader not out but into Meanders an intanglement of the clue a Sphinx instead of an Oedipus For there was no such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before nothing so difficult so involved of so incertain and dubious signification as this which now he calls giving God more then he requires by the rule of worship and explains by uncommanded worship and the least addition to the rule of worship I shall evince the truth of what I now say and with the same hand clear again what he hath clouded by asking him but this one question Doth he mean in these words more and Addition any new species or sort of worship neither prescribed by the law of Nature nor instituted by any positive law of God or doth he designe onely some circumstance onely or ceremony which being not of the intrinsick nature or essence of worship but onely accidental to it is not particularly commanded or prescribed by the word of God the rule of worship such are the time the place the gestures and such outward but some of them inseparable attendants of worship I shall desire to secure my expressions from obscurity and mistakes and therefore to be as explicit as may be Prayer is a species of worship praying on the Lords day on Christmas day observing constant hours of prayer thrice seven ten times every day is each of them a circumstance adherent to Prayer some time is necessary and inseparable from Prayer but every of these times forementioned are not so he that prayes but thrice doth not pray seven or ten times a day So again the place of prayer may give it a different denomination either of publick or private the manner may render it more or less solemn the gestures more or less reverent or irreverent the increase letting down of ardor devout or formal and there are many sorts and degrees of each of these but these do not constitute new or several sorts of worship but all are accidents of one and the same special of worship viz. of Prayer Here then is a wide difference and if his meaning were of the species or sorts of worship then I never doubted to affirm with him that all uncommanded worship is an excess if he please an error I should rather say a setting up that for worship of God which is not worship nay perhaps quite contrary to worship and this sure was never justified by me explicitely or implicitely in conclusions or in grounds and principles of thus concluding and so still this hath not been usefull to me to discover any mistake of mine The second then is the onely branch remaining of which his words as referring to me can possibly be understood and then 't wil prove so far from being any misadventure of mine that it will devolve all absurdity upon the Diatribist For I shall demand Hath the rule of worship i. e. the Scripture any where prescribed the times the places the gestures and all the circumstances of the worship of God and that both positively and exclusively so that he that prayes oftener then the Scripture expresly commands or on any day not assigned to that purpose by Scripture sinnes in so doing addes to the rule gives more then God requires doth too much is too religious is criminous and abominable to God in so doing every of these must be the affirmations of this Diatribist if this 2d meaning be his and the like he is obliged to say again of him that prays in any place in any manner in any gesture which the word of Scripture the rule of worship hath not commanded And because this is by all reason to be resolved to be his meaning or else his whole Book is perfectly cast away a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or beating the air without me or any man else to be his adversarie I shall at the present suppose it so and shew him as deictically as he can wish the absurdities of it And 1. for the times of prayer I demand What hath the rule of worship the Scripture prescribed hath it prescribed morning and evening Prayer and that both positively and exclusively to any more If so then by the standard of this Diatribist's doctrine Davids or Daniels praying three times a day adding the noon day season to the other two must be criminous and abominable or if he shall pitch upon any other number of times as prescribed by the Rule then I shall add an unite more to that number and demand whether that addition will adde abomination to his performances If he saith it will though I might press that affirmation with absurdities enough yet I shall spare it and onely demand the proof from the Scripture for this assertion and when he gives it me forfeit all my pretensions to the understanding that sacred book but if he cannot produce any such Scripture then is my Censor the guilty person the very dogmatizer that teacheth for Doctrines or Commandments of God his own Dictates which I must suppose to be the traditions of a man and the doing so I cannot resist to be a nimiety but not of religion that I yet discern In like manner for set days to be consecrated to the worship of God for fasting or for prayer I demand how many every week or every yeer hath the Rule of worship prescribed Or what rule of worship shall be appealed to the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Christ His answer to this question will involve him in intricacies enough If the Law of Moses be the rule then he knows all the New Moons and feasts of the Jews and Sabbatick years and Jubilees must return upon him If the Gospel of Christ which hath certainly abolisht all these and as he supposeth set up the Lords-day instead of them all then 1. I demand in what words of the New Testament the weekly observation of this is commanded and 2. in what words the observing all others but that particularly the Feast of Easter the annual commemorative of the Resurrection is interdicted and whether the weekly remembrance of so great a mercy being so acceptable to God it be reasonable to think the annual abominable before him And the same question soon extends it self to the day of Christs Incarnation Passion Ascension c. and if of each of these he shall define and pronounce them unlawfull without testimony and verdict from the Rule of worship the Scripture then he is the Dogmatizer that hath added to the Rule more interdicts then are there to be met with and so still he is the man guilty of the nimiety So again for gestures in the worship of God I demand What is the gesture of prayer prescribed by the Rule Is it standing sitting or
Diatribist it is most evident that Religion and Superstition were by them who were guilty of daemon worship or when used of them by others taken as exactly Synonyma words importing the same thing But against this the Diatribist conceives himself out of these very Sections to have gained somewhat to object It seems saith he the heathens did oft take the word in an ill sense and branded Religions which they did not like by that name Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superstition in two things remarkable 1. That when invaded they would not rise from their seats on the Sabbath day which was excess against the 4th Commandment and gross Superstition 2. Their killing and sacrificing their children to Moloch which being an horrid Superstition was as the former intended as a worship to the true God and yet was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. which though in other respects it was against the first Commandment gross Idolatry so in making it a worship of the true God when he commanded it not neither came it into his heart as somewhere he sayes it was a kind of Superstition against the 2d Commandment concluding in a word that the Etymologist speaks fully his sense the word among the heathen is taken for a good thing but among Christians for impiety How solid this way of objecting is will now soon be discerned 1. By remembring in the general that at the beginning of the § the testimonies brought by me in those Sections were judged to be to little purpose but to cloud the business and lead men away in a mist and yet now he can express kindness to some of the testimonies as thinking they may be usefull to his pretensions which assures me all the other might have been capable of the like favour and friendly reception from him if they could any way have been perswaded to do him service 2dly To the heathens taking the word in an ill sense the answer is most obvious so they did Religion too and indifferently either when either they that spake were Epicureans enemies to all Religion or when the Religions they spake of were disliked by them and so sure that proves nothing for the Diatribist 3dly This is the answer also to what is observed from Plutarch for he speaks of the religions which he disliked the Jewish was one of them and particularly their observation of Sabbatick rests to the ruining their City which he thought their Religion had bound them to and never dreamt that they had mistaken their Religion or that their 4th Commandment allowed them greater liberty 4thly That Plutarch mentions the killing and sacrificing of children he took that also for a part of some mens Religion and thought he had reason to be dissatisfied with it and to make it an instance of the Quantum Religio potuit how much evil Religion did in the world still making no distinction betwixt Religion and Superstition But here by the way the Diatribist hath a little mistaken in thinking that this bloody worship in sacrificing their children to Moloch was as the former i. e. as that of the strict Judaical rest in time of invasion intended as a worship to the true God Certainly Moloch was no true God but a false the abomination of the children of Ammon 1 Kin. 11. 7. and 2 Kin. 23. 13. thought by learned men to be a deified King of the Aegyptians and so a daemon placed among the starres the same that others make the planet Mars see Kircheri Prodromus Coptic 1. 5. and that sacrifice was the giving their seed to Moloch that false God Lev. 20. 2 3 4. or the making their sonnes and daughters pass through the fire to Moloch Jer. 32. 45. and so no way intended to the true God And whereas he saith this was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. t is strange he should not see or acknowledge that it was a downright sacrificing to Moloch a Daemon and not as to the true God but then he could have had no pretense to make it an act of uncommanded worship and so such a kind of Superstition as is chargeable on our Christmas Festival and then he had lost all the advantage which this instance was to bring in to him Toward this he thought to reap some benefit by that text of Scripture He commanded it not neither came it into his heart as he somewhere sayes But why did he not tell us where God saith this If his memory had failed his Concordance would soon have helpt him to set down the place But it was not for his turn it should be examined The place is Jer. 32. 35. and again Jer. 7. 31. and truely belongs to these sacrifices to Moloch but then God's not commanding c. signifies not onely uncommanded worship but by the figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinary in the Scripture worship directly forbidden under threat of excision Lev. 20. 2. Whosoever he be that giveth any of his seed to Moloch he shall surely be put to death the people of the land shall stone him with stones and I will set my face against him and cut him off from among his people v. 3. And if the people of the land do any way hide their eyes from the man when he giveth of his seed to Moloch and kill him not then will I set my face against that man and family and will cut him off and all that go a whoring after him v. 4. and accordingly we see it in the Execution Jer. 7. 31 32. The valley of Tophet where they burnt their sonnes and daughters in the fire shall be called the vally of slaughter for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place And sure this was not the manner of proceeding against those that observed any feast or sacrifice to the true God which was not commanded or prescribed by God they that kept the Encaenia were not thus judged and therefore this was very little to the Diatribist's advantage as now appears by examining the place it is pity Mr. C. would not consider it Lastly For the words in the Etymologist which he saith are fully his sense t is again a mistake they are directly the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It must be known that the word Superstition is among the Graecians or Gentiles taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a good thing but among us Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for impiety i. e. evidently the heathens and the Christians use it for the same thing the worship of daemons but that the Gentiles commend and account good who use it but we Christians justly deem it the greatest impiety Agreeable hereto again is that of Phavorinus a Christian also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstition is the worshipping all things even those which ' are not to be worshipt and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is dubious concerning faith as the Israelites betwixt God and
is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that doth any thing from his own not anothers will or command whereas the word to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary in performing commands is by him set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so those two words must be read together and not severed as they now are in the vulgar copie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as immediately after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again of the two words formerly cited by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former certainly signifies the freeness of the matter not of the person one that is willingly deaf or disobedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sure cannot be phansied a doing that freely or willingly which is commanded for no man is commanded to be disobedient and in like manner the latter is rendred by Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is made such by himself and not commanded by the city adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 setting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary to commanded by another and Phavorinus repeats the very same words onely with the change of the Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding also as seldome he omits to do what Hesychyus had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same may appear again by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that chooseth ill voluntarily i. e. he which of his own accord chooseth the evil both in Phavorinus and Suidas where sure that which he chooseth voluntarily is not first commanded by God being supposed to be evill And so still these compositions from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie all of them in perfect accord with my notion of Will-worship i. e. a performance voluntarily taken up without any command of God And indeed t is a little strange that this Diatribist who takes it here in an ill sense and places the ill in this that it is an uncommanded worship should yet here dispute against this signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for voluntary worship uncommanded by God and phansie that I pretend no more but the free-willingness of the person in a commanded worship of God What he addes in the end of that 15th § that though the word in other authors be taken for voluntary worship and be but once used in Scripture yet the Spirit of God useth words in a sense clearly different from other authors instancing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 4. taken for a vice which in Aristotle is taken for a virtue will soon receive answer For 1. Hesychius being the author now peculiarly under consideration and his Glosses having a speciall propriety to the explicating of words in Scripture what is said by him is not so much the sense of other authors as of the Scripture itself and so cannot reasonably be thought distant from it 2dly Though some words are taken in the Scripture in a sense different from other authors this is not applicable to all words of Scripture some are used in ordinary vulgar senses and by much the greater part of words there and from thence to conclude of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is taken in a different sense is to conclude and syllogize from particulars which is against all Laws of Logick 3dly Whensoever a word in any place of Scripture is affirmed to be used in such a different sense that must be concluded either by the circumstances of the text which so inforce it or else by comparing it with other places of Scripture where that sense is necessary as when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is concluded to be a vice Eph. 5. 4. t is manifest by the context it must do so for to it is immediately annext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are not onely not convenient but as that phrase denotes very inconvenient nay as the companions of it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inforce filthy noisome unsavory so as folly oft signifies uncleanness and so this is a visible reason also why the word is taken in an ill sense when Aristotle meaning onely cleanly not beastly jesting takes it in a good sense But of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this no way appears in this one place where t is used but on the contrary the society in which t is found humility and self-denyal or austerity determine it to be the good sense as certainly as the companie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determine that to an ill And so much for my 5 t Reason Sect. 13. Mr. C. his distinction of voluntary Spontaneous A work of love The Testimony of Socrates Worship true or false Nothing unlawfull which is not forbidden Voluntaryness no way forbidden The second Commandment TO my last reason because things done in the service of God are not therefore ill because spontaneous but on the contrary that when out of a pious affection a man shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is so much more commendable and acceptable to God he thinks it sufficient to distinguish of voluntary either as it denotes the manner or the efficient cause of worship in the first respect that is voluntary saith he which yet is necessary viz. commanded by God in the second that onely which is done by the will of man contradistinguisht to the will of God But this distinction is very far from answering my reason For of the second it is he knowes that I understand the word and that I might prevent all want of this or the like distinction I speak most plainly using the word Spontaneous not voluntary on purpose to denote that which was done by mans will on his own accord without any command of Gods for so sure Spontaneous signifies however the Diatribist here confounds it with voluntary and so involves in stead of extricating mixes when he went to distinguish that which is suâ sponte from a mans own incitation not from any external impellent whether command or punishment attending it for this indeed being done thus freely is perfectly a work of love and that renders it so extremely greatefull and rewardable by God I shall give you the description of it in the words of Socrates speaking of Ecclesiastical rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing no man can shew any written command for this it is manifest that the Apostles left this to every mans judgement and will that every man might do good neither by fear nor of necessity When he addes that in worship devised by man the will bears all the blame and then the more voluntary the more abominable I answer that worship is either false or true bad or good Heathen or Christian His rule is perfectly true in unlawful wicked worship all the blame thereof lyes on the will of man but it can have no place where the worship is lawfull for then no blame is due at all but the more
free it is t is so much the more commendable Now it is of lawfull and Christian worship that we here speak as he knows well enough or else it were not imaginable we could take it in a good sense and of this he must needs understand us also or else he could not make all the blame of it in mans will or devising as he doth And that a worship in itself and materially lawfull i. e. whilst it is abstracted from the consideration of Gods commanding it or not should by not being commanded by God become unlawfull this is to confound things most distant forbidding and not forbidding For the Law and Will of God being the rule in agreement with or opposition to which lawfull and unlawfull consists it is as impossible that any thing should be unlawfull in respect of Gods Law which is not forbidden by it as that any thing should be lawfull which is forbidden When therefore he proceeds affirming but offering no proof that the voluntariness of an action is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or irregularity of it first this is a begging the question 2. 'T is set in such terms that it hath not the least appearance of truth in it for how can the voluntariness be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or irregularity unless the Law forbid voluntariness which certainly it no way doth as was formerly evidenced from hence because there is no universall negative command in Scripture prohibiting all acts and degrees of acts beside what are in particular commanded That there is no such sufficiently appear by the one instance which here he thinks fit to mention that of the 2d Commandment which saith he forbids all things i. e. all worship and all degrees of that worship besides what are particularly commanded Which though it be as far from all appearance of truth as any thing affirmable by any for what word is there in that Commandment which can sound that way Certainly none unlesse every ceremony devised by man and every degree whether of charity or devotion which is not particularly under precept be presently metamorphosed into a graven image hath not yet any the least proof to back it and so still is the meanest begging of the main question imaginable And so having more largely spoken of this before this is sufficient also to be said here in the vindication of my last reason Sect. 14. The first occasion of mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ill The vulgar translator and Mr. Calvin The Diatribists three exceptions to this shewed to be of no force Will-worship distant from Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only in a good sense among Christians Three mistakes of the Diatribist All uncommanded is not forbidden HIS next post or Stage is made up of an examination of those things to which I conceived the mistake and abuse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imputable The first of which I assigned to be the vulgar translations rendring it Superstitio that being most probably S. Hieroms and his words being found agreeable to it in some places and from thence Mr. Calvin hath affirmed it Superstitio Graecis dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That this was fit to be insisted on as a first occasion of the mistake will be evident enough to any who considers how ordinary it is for the Romanists on one side without farther inquiry or consideration to follow the vulgar translation and for the reformed on the other to follow the steps of Mr. Calvin and not alwaies to examine his grounds of affirming which certainly were very farre from solid in this matter it being evident to all that know any thing of words that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek for Superstition and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but once used in Scripture and not found in any author but such as may be resolved to have used it from thence Mr. Calvins words that Superstitio is called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot probably signifie any more then that the Greek word in that one place is by the vulgar translator rendred Superstitio And then this is an evidence of that which there I affirmed that the occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in in an ill sense which I must be allowed to deem a mistake is the vulgar translators rendring it Superstitio Now to this three things are here objected though not to the main of the observation for no word is replied to that yet to the mention of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. First that a man may say as much for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self as the Doctor saith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bring the Doctor for his voucher who saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes is taken in a good sense But I reply 1. that the Doctor never saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in a good sense among Christians who sure never allowed the worship of Daemons but only among heathens who do allow it 2. That if it were sometimes taken in good sense yet that were not sufficient to conclude that it were all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all good things are not the same no nor all ill and therefore in whatsoever sense the words are taken whether both in good or both in ill the one in good the other in ill sense yet still the nature and importance of the words is distant so ought not to have been confounded either by the vulgar translator or by Mr. Calvin and being so unduly confounded the Diatribist cannot from thence raise any more solid argument for the ill sense of the one then I can which I pretend not to do for the good sense of the other 2dly He objects that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Doctor knowes is taken also sometimes in an ill sense as well as a good why then saith he may they not both equally signifie superstition especially when applied to false or men-devised worship I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when spoken of Christians is never taken in an ill sense unlesse by virtue of some Epithet joined with it which it self is ill as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. James vain religion and then also t is the vanity which hath the ill sense not the religion And again that vain or ill religion is not superstition neither but an unagreeablenesse of the Professors practice to his religion Now he knows it is of Christians that now we speak and so there could be no place for this exception nor for any thing to be founded in it nor plea from hence that either the simple or the compound should be rendred superstition As for the men devised worship that that should be synonymous with false that is the old artifice of begging the question in stead of saying ought for the gaining of it His last exception is that Superstition or Will-worship is more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
by perfection according to the Commandments he will allow me to mean as the words literally import that sort and degree of perfection which the Commandments of the Gospel allow of very well though they require it not of every man or lay it under precept then I shall not doubt to approve the perfection which I instance in viz. that of martyrdome to be such unless when some discharge of known duty or yet greater good calls us another way and if this be the doctrine of Papists I hope yet that all Protestants are not therefore bound to disclaim it I never heard that our old English reformation which I thought had been sealed by the blood of many martyrs had lookt on martyrdome as a conceited Popish perfection And if this be the privilege of the present deformation to exclude martyrdome out of the catalogue of virtues as the Martyrs and Saints out of our Calendars if this Diatribist be now one of that Triumphant Church which hath thrown all cross from their shoulders and disclaimed all pretensions to this conceited perfection and resolved all to be Papists which shall thus communicate with the sufferings of Christ and observe this conformity with the image of Gods son Rom. 8. I shall only tell him that I shall be very well pleased to be guilty of this piece of Popery and to suffer from this sword of the tongue till God please to call me to any higher tryals Mean while when the Apostle and the Church which hath transcribed his style have used the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfected by sufferings and called martyrdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection I cannot retract that style what envy soever fall on me for the using it What now followes in pursuit of this matter Does God call all men at all times to martyrdome Is there any command for all men to be martyred c. is directly the evincing my assertion against himself for upon that very foundation it is that I superstruct therefore Martyrdome which is the highest degree of perfection is not under any command Quod erat demonstrandum In my third answer which was that perfection here had degrees in it and consequently supposing men bound to be perfect Mat. 5. 48. yet it followes not that they are bound to the highest degree of perfection his answer is he will grant this and yet deny my voluntary oblations still But how can that be when that higher degree of perfection is supposed to be under no precept and so to be free and so when arrived to a voluntary oblation But his grant it seems was only conditional for it followes in his words For we say there are degrees of or rather to perfection here upon condition that he will grant that every degree even the highest is required by the law of God and what is short of that highest is so far culpable This condition I confesse I cannot perform and so must lose the advantage of his grant And truly to require it of me is to grant my premises and require me to renounce my conclusion For from that concession that there are degrees in perfection and there may be perfection where yet there is not the highest degree of perfection it infallibly follows that the highest degree of perfection is not under obligation of that precept which requires no more then that we be perfect as when the precept binds to no more then to be mercifull in some degree it is evident that it binds not to be mercifull in the highest degree and consequently that the highest degree of mercy shall be still free under no obligation of precept In this matter he desires to speak his own sense in St Hieromes words Charitas quae non potest augeri c. citing Ep. 62 for it But this citation is sure mistaken there is no such thing in that Epistle The place sure is in St Hieromes Epistle to St Augustine where he desires his sense of those words Jam. 2. 10. He that keeps the whole Law and offends in one point is guilty of all On which occasion he discourseth a great while how one virtue may be found in them which yet are guilty of other sins and so from one thing to another not by way of defining but by raising of difficulties to provoke St Augustines solution of them And on these termes he purposes his notion of virtue that it is the loving of that which is to be loved and is in some greater in some less in some none at all and then addes Plenissima verò quae jam non possit augeri quamdiu homo hîc vivit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profectò illud quod minus est quà m à ebet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est justus in terrâ qui faciat bonum non peccet c. But the most full virtue such as cannot be increased is in no man as long as he lives here But as long as it may be increased that which is less then it ought to be is faulty whereby it is that the Scripture saith that there is not a just man on earth which doth good and sinneth not and in thy sight shall no man living be justified and if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves c. By this view of the place it is evident that the virtue which on occasion of the place in St James he speaks of being an universall impartial observation of the whole Law and consequently every failing in that a vice for to that all the proofs belong that there is no man but sinneth sometimes there is no reason to extend his speech any farther then to this and then it will in no wise be appliable to our business which is onely of the degrees of this or that particular virtue which it is certain that man may have who yet is guilty of some sin in other particulars This therefore I willingly acknowledge that he that failes of any part of his duty is therein faulty or this is ex vitio in him and if of that onely S Hieromes words quamdiu augeri potest be understood as it is most reasonable they should whether wee judge by the occasion or the proofes of his speech or by the express words quod minus est quà m debet ex vitio est that which is less then it ought i. e. less then he is bound to do is faulty then as I fully consent to the truth of them so when that is granted no man can hence infer therefore every regular act of obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin for beside many other inconveniences formerly noted this fresh one will be observable from St Hieromes own words that then every act of virtue in this life is a sin for as for that fullest perfection which cannot be increased the beginning of this testimony acknowlegeth that it is not to be found in any man in
a last remedy and so not proceeded to till the disease were universally spreading and obstinate against all cure for whilest it were lower then so it was still but the season of reformation From whence that the Diatribist should think fit to infer it my sense that he might accuse me that lesse or lesse generall abuses need no reformation there can be no tolerable account rendred but only this that his ears have been so accustomed to the new dialect that of exterminative reformations that he cannot think the word signifies any thing else by whomsoever it is used but that which indeed it never signifies in any propriety of speech extirpation and abolition In a word I think there is no necessity of excision till the part begin to gangrene or corrupt and spread yet I can admit of medicines long before and heartily advise timely prudent applications as soon as ever the patient begins in the least measure to be distempered His 23th § is the accusing of those that used cards on the Lords day after the evening service and the upbraiding their superstition that they will not touch cards or dice on Christmas day and the answer is sufficient that as I spake not a word of them that did thus so I never heard of any that thus made a difference betwixt Christmasse day and the Lords day but that if they used that liberty on the later they used it on the former too However if by the Diatribist it were deemed criminous in the one I should have hoped he might have been gratified by hearing it was abstained from in the other For my own part I never allowed my self the liberty on either and know not that I ever saw it used and therefore I am sure there is nothing farther to be replied to by me in that § I as heartily with a devout conscientious profitable observation of the Lords day as of any other Festivity and cannot justly fall under the Diatribists censure for any thing I have so much as intimated in this matter And this I say the rather because § 24. this is charged upon my doctrine as a crime and a part of superstition that the day hath been accounted more sacred then the Lords day and the proof brought out of my 20th § where saith he I call it most sacred and out of my 24th § where I say it hath been kept if not much more yet certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year But here is misprision in each of these The phrase most sacred § 20. doth not at all belong to the day much lesse to the preferring it before the Lords day in respect of sacrednesse but only to a Christian Festivity as that is made up of prayer praises Eucharist charity hospitality c All which being put together I hope I could not offend in styling it most sacred such as the extravagant irrational riots of men ought not to assault and pollute And for the 2d there is no such word as sacred to be found in that 24th § all that is said is that in this nation the day of the birth of Christ hath been kept if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year and this interpreted most clearly by the following words in frequenting the services of the Church in the use of the Liturgie Sermon Sncraments c. And I cannot imagine how this manner of strict observing of it can be criminous in it self or to the prejudice of the Lords day on which t is no news to say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which I make an ingredient in the strictnesse of the celebration and that which denominates it more strict is not constantly celebrated and yet sure no fault that it is constantly celebrated on Christmas day However the strictnesse of observing is one thing and the sacrednesse is another Any private fast may be more strictly observed more or more severe strictnesse of duty allotted to it then to the Lords day and yet the Lords day as set apart by the Apostles of Christ in respect of that institution and of the resurrection of Christ to the commemorating whereof it was consecrated be esteemed and lookt on as most sacred I need to say no more of that As for the ground which he pretends from his own knowledge to assigne of my thus speaking viz. that we may make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority viz. of the Church this he must very much dissemble his knowledge if he confesse not to be a mistake also For in the margent he grants that I say that the Apostles instituted the Lords day § 31. and so certainly I do though I know not in what words of Scripture that institution is set down But saith he there be other words § 57. which speak of the Lords day by the same authority appointed To which I answer that the words there used though the Lords day be by the same authority appointed belong not at all to the stating of this question and being introduced in that form though c. they are not any affirmation that the Lords day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas day but only a concession of what was asked by the Quaerist without so much as examining or inquiring into the utmost of the authority by which it stood Of this I had sufficiently exprest my sense § 31. as the Diatribists margent confesses from me viz. that the Apostles instituted the Lords day whereas in that 57th § I speak as plainly of Christmas day that it hath its authority from the institution and usage of the Vniversal Church And if when the matter is so clear and my meaning so expresse both for the one and the other I must yet be accused for the contrary and this be affirmed from the Diatribists knowledge to be my ground viz. a designe to make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority and that by him specified viz. of the Church T is certainly most visible that either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be so taken as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles instituted the Lords day and either they personally or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals the Festival of Easter being derived undoubtedly from the Apostles Philip and John Peter and Paul as hath already clearly appeared out of the difference betwixt Victor and Polycrates And other Festivals by the passages of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp i. e. by evidence of story being demonstrated to be little later though of Christmasse this do not so expressely appear to me as to be any where affirmed by me But there is yet more of this captious discourse behinde upon my saying that t is not usual to touch
cards or dice on Christmas day and this must adde either to our superstition or hypocrisie our superstition if they be lawful in that they forbid them on that day that God hath not forbidden them Hypocrisie if they be unlawful in abstaining then and yet using them on ther days But we shall soon be extricated from the power of this Dilemma by affirming 1. that those sports used moderately as diversions and no way abused by our inordinacy are not by any argument that ever I met with proved to be toto genere or absolutely unlawful and so that they may be used for divertisement on other days and particularly on the following days of that Festivity and yet 2dly that they are no way necessary and so that no man offends that abstains from them on all other days and employs himself better constantly From whence it is necessarily consequent also that he that hath fed on the body and blood of Christ and consecrated himself in an extraordinary manner to commemorate the mysterie of our redemption on Christmas day and agreeably thereto desires to spend it so much more strictly then other dayes as not to admit those sports which are lawful on other days to divide any part of that can never be criminous in so doing As for any thing of riot but such is not all lawful divertisement on the following days he knowes they are no way pleaded for by me and if any be guilty of them as the shame thereof is due to the offenders not to the festival which is innocent and laudable so t is too well known that the Lords day it self hath not been secured from the same unhappy adherences And it might as well be charged on that that the heathens worshipt the Sun on that day and that revelling upon it are fitter for such heathen feasts then for Christians as the Diatribist could suggest in this place that the Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time that Christmas was and that the excesses of the following dayes are services fitter for the revels of Bacchus and Saturn or the birth day of Herod then for the festivity of a spiritual Saviour All this is true and equally granted by both parties and so hath no propriety or pertinency to the dispute between us Sect. 16. Christmas if of the same original with Easter certainly Apostolical However of the practice of the Primitive Church All rendring of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MY 27th § was introductory to a discourse more general to shew by what authority festivals in general and particularly this of Christmas pretends to stand in the Catholike Church which I acknowledged not to be by any institution of Christs but to have had the beginning from the Apostles or the succeeding Church To the view hereof he now proceeds and briefly sets to it to disprove each of these originals beginning first with that of the Apostles And of this he thinks he need say no more then to appeal to the same arguments which he had used against the Apostles institution of Easter § 6. viz. 1. the no mention of such institution in the Scripture 2. the expresse words of Socrates that neither Christ nor his Apostles commanded the feast of Easter to be observed But to both these it is certain that I ow no return having now paid it so punctually in the 4 h § where beside clear answers to the Diatribists arguments I added evidences undeniable that the feast of Easter was observed by the Apostles And I cannot doubt but they will be of force with him when he shall take leisure to weigh them And then if the case shall be acknowledged the same betwixt Easter Christmasse that of the resurrection this of the birth of Christ as the Diatribist seems to acknowledge in tendring no one argument more against the Apostolicalness of Christmass then he had before produced against the institution of Easter by them then it is evident my affirmation must ascend higher then it ever meant to have done and not proceed disjunctively that this feast of the nativity is derived either from the Apostles or the succeeding Church but leaving out the latter part of the partition fix upon the former that being yielded to have the same original with Easter it is certainly derived from the Apostles from whence it appears that of Easter is derived To which purpose we have already produced some evidences which may justly pretend to some force at least ad hominem to him that hath no more against this then against all other Christian festivals viz. those from the martyrdomes of Ignatius and Polycarp written by those that were present at them and so lived soon after the Apostles That of Polycarps recorded in that famous Epistle of the Church of Smyrna I have set down at large and made my inferences from it § § 33. and 34. of that treatise of Festivals To which I have here formerly added that other parallel testimony from the acts of Ignatius So that now I hope I may safely resume my former affirmation without all diffidence that other Festivals beside that of the weekly Lords day were derived to us some certainly from the Apostles others from the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles In one of which ranks though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity of Christ is to be placed yet because we have not those evidences of the fact which we have for Easter and others I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainties nor affirm more then what that treatise hath shewed out of the ancient Fathers that this feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity And against this I am sure neither Socrates nor my L. of Falkland who is joyned next to him hath suggested any thing then what was thus done by them must not in equity fare the worse for my adding the mention of a motive or incitement that might reasonably recommend it to them which is therefore presently styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew of wisdom as if all reasonable motives were to be blasted under that title as all uncommanded performances here are said to be by the express words of the 2d Commandment Col. 2. 23. But sure we have formerly spoken enough of this arguing Sect. 17. The Encaenia a religious feast instituted by the the Iewes and approved by Christ vindicated from all his exceptions Marriage feasts Religious feasts cannot be unlawful if civil be lawful The feast of Purim a religious feast THE 29th § proceeds to consider what I had said of the Encaenia among the Jewes the feast of dedication not instituted by God in the Law but in commemoration of the purging of the altar by Judas Maccabeus and yet this observed by the Jewes and approved by Christs presence at it Joh 10. 23. To this the Diatribist answers that there may be many mistakes in this And truly it matters not how many there may be as long as
fitly be so interpreted as to affirm it and I do not believe that Estius hath or that this Diatribist can demonstrate the contrary I am sure he hath here produced nothing toward it but the bare name of Estius That Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes was the person that first planted the faith here I receive from our Stories by tradition and accordingly satisfie my self therewith and never attribute it to Crescens or any other but particularly express my reasons why I cannot imagine it to be Crescens and therefore am very much misreported in this matter All that I had to do with Crescens in that place was only this that from the authority of the relations of Crescens's coming so early into France I thought I might conclude against the improbability of Josephs or Simons coming hither the latter being perfectly as credible as the former and the passage from France to England so short and easie that there can be no difficulty or disparity in the matter that one should be believed by the French and the other be incredible to us This was set down intelligibly enough in that treatise if the Diatribists haste or somewhat else had not cast the cloud over it Secondly when from the time of celebrating Easter anciently in this Nation I conclude that neither Peter nor Paul nor Crescens did first bring the Faith into this Island and the Diatribist thinks he hath thereby gained an advantage and that the same reason is of force against Joseph and Simon Zelotes also this is an evident mistake in him For it is sufficiently known that as the Western custome of keeping Easter was deduced from S. Peter and S. Paul so the contrary Eastern observation pretended to tradition from other Apostles particularly from S. John Now as to the former of these it is consequent that none of the associates or attendants of S. Paul or S. Peter were the planters of the Faith here and so not Crescens who was such 2 Tim. 4. 11. because of those it is not imaginable that they should vary from the custome received from those two Apostles as t is apparent the first Christians here did in the celebrating of Easter so it is no way conclusible of all others which related not to those two Apostles and such I suppose Joseph and Simon Zelotes were it being very possible that either of these might comply with the Jewish account and accord with S. John and the Eastern Church in this celebration And accordingly as by this indication it appears that the words of Metaphrastes concerning Simon Peters preaching the faith and constituting Churches c. in Britain in the 12th of Nero cannot be deemed to have truth in them so if it may be supposed that Metaphrastes receiving his intelligence from some more ancient author or tradition mistook Simon Peter for Simon Zelotes I see not what could be objected against the probability of the relation either in respect of the person of that Simon who is by very good Authors deemed to have been the planter of the faith here or in respect of the earlinesse of the plantation in or before the 12th of Nero i. e. within 34 years after Christs ascension To this matter of the antiquity of the faith in this Island and that particularly by this Simon Zelotes I shall now add some few considerations First out of the words of Theodoret in his Therapeut Ser 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where having compared the Apostles of Christ under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our fisher-men and Publicans with the Lawgivers of the Grecians and Romanes he affirms that whereas these latter did not perswade or gain upon their next neighbours to live according to their laws those former wrought upon not only Grecians and Romanes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the nations of the Barbarians among which we know the Britains were vulgarly contained and brought them to embrace the Evangelical law and if this be yet too general he then addes the enumeration of the severals and among them by name specifies the Britains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A clear testimony that the Apostles themselves in person paid this obedience to Christs command of going to all nations none excepted and that with some kinde of successe every where particularly here in Britain 2dly From the express words of Nicephorus Callistus who setting down the several plantations of the Apostles hath these words of Simon Zelotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the coming of the holy Ghost upon him he betook himself to Aegypt and Cyrene and Africk and passing through Mauritania and Lybia in the preaching of the Gospel and adventuring on the Western Ocean and preaching the Gospel to the Brittish Islands and depredicating Christ as was needful both by many signes and wonders and by divinity and doctrine and being tried with many afflictions at last with endless joy embracing the death of the cross he departed to his Master Which last passage of his death that it belonged to these Islands also is affirmed by Dorotheus who addes that he was slain and buried here and thereto accord the Greek Liturgies in their Menelogie though Baronius and others dissent in that particular of his death Thirdly That Gildas Brito or Badonicus who affirms that Christ was preached to Britanny under the name of glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae summo Tiberii Caesaris in the last year of Tiberius Caesar i. e. in the fifth year after Christs resurrection is by Sir Hen Spelman cited as author gravis eximiae fidei a grave author and of great fidelity anciently styled Sapiens The wise and so agreeing with these former testimonies may deserve to be heeded by us and not cast off as by the Diatribist he is magisterially dictating that his affirmation was meer tradition and far from probability but not adding the least proof of it but only that no authors of any credit lay it so high with what truth doth now competently appear and is yet farther confirmed by a former testimony brought by Mr. Fox out of Gildas Albanicus in his book of the victory of Aurelius Ambrosius where he affirmes Britannie received the Gospel in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius To this accordeth also the Vatican MS. out of which Baronius placeth the reception of the Faith in this Island about the year 35. which is two years earlier then the last of Tiberius For other passages to the same purpose especially for the relations of Joseph of Arimathea in Guil Malmesbur I refer the Reader to that worthy Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman de exord p. 4. c. And whatever the Diatribist suggests I see not indeed in any or all of this the least degree of either impossibility or improbability For of those Apostles that immediatly after Christs ascension took their journeys to several corners of the world to publish and propagate the Gospel what difficulty is there in believing that in the space of four