moral or rather spiritual good then the bare caring for the things of the world to please a yoke-fellow 1. This supposes a man that is Marryed cannot be holy in body and spirit and care for the things of the Lord as the unmarryed may which is a dishonour cast upon Gods ordinance of honourable Marriage 2. That a Married man does barely care for the world to please his wife 3. That it is not as morally good for a married man to care for his family and to please his wife as for the unmarried to care to please God when both please God and there need no comparison 4. If Virginity or single life were morally better then Marriage the Apostle neglected the chiefest argument to perswade it the greater reward in heaven as a greater good work for so the Doctor determines this Free-will offering is more commendable acceptable rewardable But not one word of this in all the Scriptures What ever some Ancients and many Papists presume to dictate of an higher glory for Virginity then for Marriage and use this if not as the onely yet as the chiefest perswasive Hear what some of the Ancients who extolled Virginity enough if not too much In laudem Basilii orat 22. to the disparagement of Marriage say 1. Greg. Nazianz. commending the children of Bazil the elder sayes Some of them so used their Marriage that it was no hinderance to them that they might not aspire to an equal glory of virtue with the Virgins That is were as holy in body and spirit and cared for the things of the Lord as much as they Next Saint Chrysost with respect to the reward Ad Hebr. c. 4. orat 7. hath this saying Vse Marriage with meet moderation and thou shalt be the first in the kingdom More might be added but these shall suffice much being spoken to this afore His second argument p. 220. n. 54. against my position was this The best being superlative supposes the positive to be good but if bound to the best that which were onely good were evil This consequence I proved to be naught by an instance and now I adde it follows onely that that which is not the best is less good good I say by indulgence but so far sinful as they are short of perfection All our righteousness n. 55. is as filthy rags said the Prophet and Greg. after him All humane justice if it be strictly judged is injustice He crys out of my inconstancy I said before good works were not evil and now to be injustice And are not both these true They are not evil that is sins as wrought by faith but they are sinful and injustice if strictly judged by the Law said not the Prophet both these in one sentence and Gregory the same What prevarication is this in him Does he not say the same himself in his second answer When he said such a thing is good and another best he never meant that either of them is not convincible by God to have some mixture of evil What said I other then this But he elsewhere sayes more that not onely the best but the lower degrees of good may be sinless That the evil which is or may be and so may not be adherent to it in some other respects being pardoned by God in Christ the lower degree being good an act of obedience to Christs command that which is higher and so better then that may yet be somewhat not commanded and so a Nedabah in a Christian Where he supposes first That it may be sinless in it self though evil may adhere to it in other respects this is expresly affirmed by him p. 223. n. 5. of which anon 2. He also takes for granted that the higher degrees of good are under no command which is disproved above 3. If that Nedabah or work of higher perfection be a part of that mans righteousness it 's abundant righteousness with the Pharisees and the Doctor sure the Prophets Gregories and his own concession will in Gods strict judgement affirm it to be unrighteousness But that 's little less then a contradiction that an act of highest righteousness not under any Law should be judged unrighteousness by a righteous God without a Law to judge it by Let him consider it Sect. 48. The next objection raised by him c. THat we may see how good an expositor of the Law of God the Doctor is his answere to the objection from the first and great Commandment Thou shalt love the Lord thy God p. 221. n. 1. with all thy heart c. is very considerable He affirms That the phrase denoteth onely two things 1. Sincerity of his love to God as opposed to partial divided love 2. The loving him above all other things not admitting any other thing into competition with him or in such a degree of love First I would say that these two are almost both one for what is partial divided love but admitting of some other thing into competition with him and such love is insincere He that loves God sincerely loves nothing in competition with him 2. To love God above all other things is the same with to love nothing in such a degree of love But all this may be done and yet a man may be very short of the perfection of that Commandment To love God with all his heart and the rest And that we may know whence the Doctor learned this Divinity we find it in Bellarm and other Papists one while distinguishing thus God is two wayes loved with all the heart 1. Above all other things sincerely and perfectly that nothing be set above or equalled with the love of God and thus the love of God is under command to us 2. That no vitious cogitation may creep in but that the whole man be taken up with the love of God and this say they is not commanded us in this life Just the same with the Doctor 〈…〉 who agrees fully with them in the first part of the distinction and saying those onely are denoted must also agree with them in the latter Another while they thus distinguish The Commandment may thus be understood that God alone is to be loved and nothing beside him or that nothing be loved against God above God or equally with God c. The first part is not the scope or sense of the Commandment for he presently addes Thou shalt love thy neighbour c. The second part is the same with the first in the other distinction And it is remarkable that these distinctions are used by Papists in the case of venial sins and perfect fulfilling the Law in this life The former of these I observe not the Doctor to assert but the latter he does frequently that a man may fulfill the Law to perfection and that in the lower degrees and attain to perfection above all command But in this exposition of this Great Commandment the Doctor with Papists leaves many Vide Cham. t.
Canon of Faith from John the longest liver of the Apostles but submits to the Western custome and so subjects us to Rome which he so fears and warned me to be ware of I leave these to his resolution and come to consider what he sayes to my arguments against it 1. There is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor ground to found it on p. 244. n. 12 I said there was no ground in Scripture to found it on To which he says nouothing To this he hath three answers 1. There is small virtue in this from Scripture negative As little virtue as there is in this negative argument for me it seemes to be great for himself against me For here n. 17. he pleads thus against the institution of the Lords-day Sure the New Testament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it And again against the use of the fourth Commandment Where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment p. 263. n. 8. And once more p. 281. n. 19. Christ never reprehended the observation of the Feast of Dedication that we read of therefore he approved it But in the case in hand ad hominem I have argued strongly from Scripture negative Will worship is not commanded in Scripture therefore it is unlawful But this Festival with that of the Nativity is made a Will-worship by Papists and the Doctor ergo they are unlawfull and as such have no ground in Scripture 2. Answer The Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the Feast is some be it acknowledged a less weighty ground in Scripture for the observation This word of the Apostle in the judgement of all Interpreters hath nothing to do with his Festival The text and context are also against his gloss which makes it so light that it is not so much as some weight for the observation of it And I having said so much against this gloss in my 31 Section of Fest I wonder he should so confidently produce it here and say nothing to purpose to it in its own place All I shall say now is this that if this be the sense of it which the Doctor begs it hath not onely some but an exceeding weighty ground for the observation of his Festival a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law-giving an institution Divine which he will deny to the Lords-day and proves more then he intended not onely the observation and practice but also institution Apostolical But more of this below 3. Answ The mention of the Lords-day Rev. 1. is some farther ground if it be the annuall then there is a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days The Doctor is happy if all his suppositions might be granted him he knows the place is generally understood of the Weekly-day and what is then become of his clear evidence But hear again If it should be the weekly day yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day It is observable that in all this discourse of Festivals the Doctors great designe is to vilifie if not to nullifie the authority of the Lords day so to exalt above or equal with it his Festivals which if there were no other crime is sufficient to stir the indignation of any truly Religious man Here he does it and again presently n. 17. and afterwards often as I shall note as I pass on But this he here asserts is most incongruous Rather the weekly-day was the foundation of the annual day For first it s said Christ rose on the first day of the week often and thereupon It was designed to be the Christian Sabbath or day of Assemblies but never is it said he rose upon such a day of the moneth or year 2. If the Lords weekly day was not first instituted how came the contest between the Churches whether Easter day should be observed on the Lords-day or on the Jewish day which might and did fall on any other day of the week Tradition sayes that Peter and Paul observed the Festival on the Lords day at Rome does not this suppose the Lords-day to be instituted before the Festival of Easter Saint John and Philip it s said kept it on the Jewish day how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day And let the Doctor remember that his Mother the Church of England as she includes Easter day among the Sundayes making it no otherwise an Holy-day so she founds the Lords-day not upon the annual day but upon the fourth Commandment When she commands this prayer to be said after it Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law But the Doctor will either prove or illustrate what he said As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week As if the fast on Good-friday were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lords-day or humane constitutions were to be a foundation for a Divine institution That the Apostles did expresly repeal those Feasts n. 14. p. 244 hath not he says the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10 Let the Reader turn to the place p. 3. n. 2. and see what he saith to that text all is but this It is peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Feasts but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of the Resurrection Even from the beginning to the end of this account his designe is to slur the lustre of the Lords-day levelling it to his Festivals But first the Apostle speaks indefinitely against observation of days as religious Paulus praecepit sayes Hierom. all beside the Lords day which he had there also established as the day of collection and first of Assemblies for that collection supposes the day before designed instead of the old Sabbath as well at Galatia as among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16.1 Now concerning the collection for the Saints as I have given order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordered ordained to the Churches of Galatia even so do ye upon the first day c. Here 's an Apostolical institution for collections on the Lords day and presupposes the day before appointed in both those Churches 2. It is no wayes probable that the Apostle would cry down Jewish Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost and set up the very same again at the same time as Christian Feasts as I said above If they were abolished as parts of Ceremonial-worship how scandalous might it have been to change onely the name nay the name was not changed in other Churches and set up other Feasts in their stead as parts of Christian Worship for so they would be esteemed if the Apostle had set them up or brought them in The sestimony of Socrates the Historian he eludes by a distinction
I dare not be so confident as he is to boast in a manner That this hath been the onely aim of all hitherto publisht by him and so fully satisfied in himself thereof that he doubts not to approve it to any that can make question of it What even to God himself Is not the heart deceitful above all things Did not Paul think he aimed at Gods glory in persecuting the Truth Do not the Advocates of Rome confidently pretend the same end with him in propagating their Errors and Superstitions Is not the Doctor himself a man animal gloriae Does not much learning and knowledge puff up and cause the owners to start up new marks of self-reputation and vain-glory But this I can freely grant That in such Doctrines as these before us which have immediate influence upon practice it is charity to endeavour the disabusing of all and not to suffer any fruitful and noxious Errour upon my neighbour which if my heart deceive me not was one ground of my undertaking his three Treatises 8. As for his Discourse of Infant-Baptism both what he hath written and what he intends to publish more I shall wish it good speed but I fear it will little prevail with his adversary who is tenacious of Scripture evidence but little moved by Customes of the Church either Jewish or Christian And his way of proving it waving the Scripture grounds whence it may fairly be deduced may tend to weaken those Arguments of Scripture and in the end may serve to strengthen Traditions wherein the Scripture is silent And this I fear was the Doctors Design in his first Quaere for Resolving Controversies 9 He does very well to wish the Reader the ease of a spectator that it may be his lot to live peaceably and quietly with all men But I am sure this will not be long of him who does what he can to give some of his Readers my self and some others the labour of some moneths if not years if our Replies be prolonged to the measure of his Answers wherein how ambitious soever they be of Peace it is violently wrested from them by his drawing out the Saw of Contention by multitude of words 10. That he hath fortified himself with what patience I know not for the present undertaking is visible enough by the bulk of his Book which will make it but little supportable to his Readers For though he have not transcribed the several Sections of my Diatribe's which had been equal and fair to have done but rather omits to take notice several times of four or five leaves together where it was too hot or too heavy yet hath he poured out a flood of words as the Sepia her inbie stuff to delude the Fisherman to drown a poor little Tract of fourteen with well nigh forty sheets of paper If I should hold proportion in my Reply the volume will swell so big that we may write upon it Quis legethaec Onely this may be added That as if he wanted employment to set himself on work and to trouble his Reader he catches at every little oversight See his Superst sect 32. intention or extention whether of my self or the Printers as for instance sometimes he complains of Figures too many or too few sometimes the mistake of a Letter Intention for Intension c. whereof I shall give him an account in due time by shewing the same mistakes in his own saying onely now It becomes not so grave a Doctor to catch flies having so much greater work to do 11. Lastly This I thought good to give the Reader notice of That the Doctor hath obscured the business by a new obstruse method of answering both concealing my particular Sections which he might easily have followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I did his and also devising a new method of Chapters Sections Numbers that his Reader must needs be put to much trouble to finde out mine and more to compare them with his Whereas if he had followed me Section by Section as I did him every thing had been visible in its place and easier to judge of I shall not trouble the Reader to go seek for Chapter Section Number in his discourse but onely point him to the page and number where he may readily finde what is excepted to Onely first I am engaged to follow him in his Chapter that concerns my Title Page for that hath not escaped his censure and then that which takes notice of my Preface and with all due speed to come to his Animadversions upon my particular Diatribe's 2. Of my Title pages 1. HE spake afore in his Preface of my little partiality in examining his Tracts pag. 1. n. 1. but himself is more scrupulous in examining my very Title Pages and the Scriptures themselves by me prefixed are called to Account for standing there especially that of Col. 2.4 8. as intended for an Antidote against that Philosophy c. which Paul forewarns men there to take heed of To which I shall onely say that I see no reason why it might not be as lawful for me to set this Scripture before my Tract of Superstition as for him to set the very same Scripture after his Tract of Superstition for so it is Take heed that no man deceive you with vain words no doubt intended for a Antidote against Philosophy c. And what unkindness to Num. 2. and jealousie of Phylosophy I shewed therein was the very same which himself shewed in his yea the same which Saint Paul then had amongst his Colosians Not I suppose the Gnosticks Divinity who were not then hatched but that Phylosophy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of False Apostles risen newly out of the Sects of Phylosophers whom the Divel stirred up to corrupt Religion with partly Phylosophycal notions and partly Judaical genealogies and Fables as almost all Interpreters besides himself do understand those texts by him cited n. 3 pag. 2. And how conveniently this text was accommodated to any to all my discourses will be discerned by my answer to his 4 questions 1. The text had no relation to Gnostick principles and therefore none of theirs are charged upon any of his Tracts But enticing words and subtle perswasions with Phylosophycal notions and reasons wherewith many say the Doctor is as well furnished as any man may there be found 2. Thereupon it is not charged upon him as Heretical or Heathenish or as Gnosticisme to maintain the celebration of Christs Nativity to have nothing criminous in it But this is charged upon him To make that day more holy and a part of worship as some with the Doctor have done and is not yet denied in all this discourse of his is justly censurable as criminous either under the Head of Superstition or Will-worship or both 3. No blameless Institutions of the Church no not of Rome it self are charged by any that I know for Despoiling of Christians or Sacriledges keeping them within Scripture bounds But
sorts of worship even now partake equally of the nature of the genus Indeed in true construction of God false worship is no worship of him In vain do they worship me yet they worshipped though The Doctor may consider his Logick or Divinity here which he often jears me for hereafter But ex abundanti if the Doctor will understand the question not of Circumstances but of Ceremonies added to the worship of God and thereby say some made sorts or parts of worship I have I suppose proved that he with others does make some Ceremonies as Festivals c. not Circumstances but sorts and new kindes of worship the charge whereof he never goes about to remove It will be needless now to follow him in prosecuting his absurd inferences having removed the Antecedent whence they must proceed that I do not mean it of Circumstances unprescited but of uncommanded worship yet some things deserve to be taken notice of and some questions answered As 1. For prayer p. 12. n. 17. What hath the Rule of Scripture prescribed concerning the time of prayer as morning evening and that both positively and exclusively If so then by the standard of this Diatribist this Diatribist as this Publican Davids or Daniels praying three times a day must be criminous abominable c. and so he goes on with absurdities upon absurdities But whom do they fall upon but upon himself who knowes I mean it not of Circumstances but onely of uncommanded worship and yet goes on to scornful language enough If he cannot produce any such Scriture then is my Censor the guilty person the very Dogmatizer that teacheth for Doctrines or commandments of God his own Dictates and the doing so I cannot resist to be a Nimiety but not of Religion c. I will not recriminate let the Reader judge p. 13. n. 18. who deserves the name of Censor or Dictator in Religion most the Doctor or I. A second question is How many set dayes to be consecrated to the worship of God for Fasting or Prayer every week or year hath the rule of worship prescribed law or Gospel His answer to those will involve him in intricacies enough I answer clearly 1. For every week ordinarily but one day in seven extraordinary are left to Christian liberty and occasions 2. Both by Law and Gospel one day in a week By the Law in the fourth Commandment requiring one and but one in seven and by the Gospel designing onely one the Lords day as an holy day and a part of worship all other Jewish days being voided by the Gospel 3. By what words of the New Testament is the weekly observation of the Lords day commanded I answer for the number one in seven the fourth Commandment resolves it for the particular day the first Apostolical Institution which he hath oft confessed to be of Divine obligation 4. The observing of other dayes as Easter and Pentecost with the other Festivals if made parts of worship are expresly forbidden Gal. 4. If as Circumstances of worship onely they are besides the question And note this by the way that it 's no way probable the Apostle would cry down the Feast of the Passover and set up Easter in it's stead or Pentecost and set up Whitsuntide as parts of Worship I say for so they are by some made and accounted He that will resolve these questions any otherwise will finde himself involved in intricacies enough as I have elsewhere shewed His other demands p. 14. n. 19 20 21. concerning gestures in Prayer in Fasting in Alms-giving what proportions or degrees as also duties in the second Table c. they are all beside the question the three first as being but Circumstances of worship the last as being also no worship at all of which our question is But having thus digressed to give him satisfaction if he will take it we now return to consider what is said to my proofs of this proposition That a man may be to Religious or exceed in Religion The first is If addition may be made to the Rule of Religion then a man may be too Religious the consequence is proved because Addition to the Rule is excess in Religion the Antecedent from Deut. 4.2 where all Additions to Gods Commands are forbidden what sayes he to this He n. 22 23. sayes I prove Idem per Idem absurd enough if it were true but he must be reminded that the question was whether a man might be too Religious which he denied and after my explication of it by distinctions I proved by this argument afore which whether it be to prove idem per idem n. 24. let Logicians judge As for the matter he sayes The major is false in stead of clear If it be false it is in his sense and not in mine and if not clear it is by his obscuring it taking Addition to the Rule of worship for adding some Circumstance of worship which I meant for Addition of worship it self and he confesses That he indeed that introduces any new part of Divine worship is a presumptuous assumer doth more then be should because that which he should not do Just the same that I maintain Let him say He is too bold that doth so I and others say he exceeds in Religion and is too Religious presumption in the worship of God by adding worship to it being an excess But my Assumption is also questioned upon the same willful mistake I fear and my Scripture called to the bar Deut. 4 2. Doth he that prostrates himself in prayer adde to the word of God p. 15. n. 26. then sure he that walks in the garden doth so too c. How oft shall he be told we speak of adding uncommanded worship not of observing Circumstances of time place gestures in commanded worship But let us hear his learned gloss upon this Scripture The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God not to make any change in Gods commands p. 16. n. 26. either to pretend more liberties or fewer obligations or again more obligations and fewer liberties but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts That is his precepts concerning his worship as well as other duties of common life That is if I might gloss it neither to adde to nor detract from his commands of worship but to perform uniform obedience to God c. which is the very thing I have so long pleaded for My second proof was from the School-man who makes Religion a moral virtue standing between too extreams Superstition in the excess and Profaneness or no Religion in the defect This sure is plain and easie but not to the Doctor He grants the two extreams On the one side superstition on the other irreligion Then say I he grants an excess in Religion called Superstition c. But see what a dust he makes to cloud the business Superstition is of two sorts 1. The
is the Judgement of Scripture and the best Divines That said I which the Scriptures of the Old Testament call Additions the New calls Superstition Will-worship c. But I must not scape so n. 9. In those few words named last there are many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the New Testament called Doctrines He cuts of my words I said Doctrines Traditions of men and so they are Matth. 15.6.9 By your Tradition opposed to the Commandment of God and In vain do they worship me teaching Doctrines the Commandments of men He flies to his old Muse Their teaching their own Traditions for Doctrines is adding them to the Scripture c. But then is it not evident 1. that their Doctrines and Traditions were Additions to the word 2. That these Doctrines concerned the worship of God and so Additions to the Rule of worship in vain do they worship me and are not these Additons excesses what sense then is there in his new coin'd gloss Doctrines thore simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition was made What means he that Doctrines signifies the Scripture for to that the Addition was made so he sayes Adding them to the Scriptures what their own Traditions Then their Doctrines were added to the Scripture but were not Scripture and if not Scripture Additions to the Scripture 2. But my next infirmity is that I say Those Additions are called Will-worship The contrary whereof he sayes is proved in the Treatise of Will-worship I shall not anticipate the place All I say now is but this If it be Will-worship to devise new sorts of worship and to offer them to God for worship as the Doctor confesses it is pag. See p. 10. n. 11. p. 15. n. 24. 96. n. 6. Then those Additions may well be called Will-worship and such Will-worship may very well be called an Addition to the Rule of worship 3. This is yet another of my mistakes That additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New Testament called Superstition I desire he would shew me one such place for my concordance will not afford it me Let him not evade by those words Called Superstition That is in so many words and I will shew many places where the thing is apparant that Superstition is an Addition to the word and Additions to the word are Superstition But in stead of all I shall produce his own words Sect. 46. of Superst To affirm God to command when he doth not is Superstition under the notion of nimiety or excess because that man addes to the commands of Christ Which place will shortly come to be considered He sayes Those Athenians Act. 17.22 sure p. 23. n. 10. never medled with and so added not to the true rule of worship any otherwise then as all that abandon it adde to it live by some other false rule and minde not that and if they are for so doing to be stiled adders to the rule of worship adulterers are so in like manner and so every sin in the world is Superstition This is a strange gloss 1. Do not Idolatres Polytheists such as these Athenians were meddle with and adde to the rule of worship surely then none in the world do Is it not a moral Law written in the hearts of all men though blotted much that God alone is to be worshipped do not they that worship other Gods with or without him meddle with and adde to this rule of worship 2. Does it become the Doctors Learning and Divinity to make adulterers and so every sinner in the second Table to be with them afore stilled Superstitious when worship and so Superstition is onely in the first Table let the Reader judge Against my second proof exception is taken p. 23. n. 12. 1. Because I use the same medium as in the former proposition An heavy charge as if the Doctor did not know that one medium may prove several propositions The question is whether it proves the present proposition or no 2. Then he undertakes to put my argument into form but that I refuse and renounce his whole Syllogisme as none of mine upon this ground because he hath changed the question from uncommanded worship to uncommanded ceremonies and then playes his feats onely I shall remind him what he grants in his proposition 1. That worshipping of the Daemons is an excess opposite to Religion ergo Superstition is an excess 2. So also is the worshipping the true God after an undue and unlawful manner an excess ergo Superstition is of larger extent then the worshipping of Daemons which both the Doctor seems to deny Now I shall put my argument into form If profaneness the one extreme of Religion he a defect of Religion then Superstition the other extreme is an excess of Religion but the first is true and cannot be denied ergo If the Doctor did not intend to decline the force of this proof and to make a diversion to his Reader he would not have started a new Hare that himself might escape My next proof was from the Doctors own concessions p. 24. n 13. See p. 227. c. the numb 13. twice where he first espies a Numeral fault a figure of 4. twice Whether this was mine or the Printers fault he hath no cause to complain having 6. for 5. But that 's a trivial excursion yet ordinary enough First the Doctor grants Superstitiosus may denote such an excess an excess of Religion n. 16. What excess in Religion the super statutum every addition 1. Every uncommanded circumstance or ceremony in the worship of God thus he must mean if constant c. No such matter but every Addition of worship supra statutum above the command of God The question was of worship it self from the beginning not of Circumstances of worship If Superstitious signifie such an excess will it any thing help the Doctor to say so did Religiosus sometime signifie too Yes 1. Superstitio and Religio were among Heathens the * They were not the same see ad p. 70 n. 1. But one a vice the other a vertue same and 2. All such excesses are not culpable in their opinion If they once did signifie excesses in Religion and culpable it matters not what their opinions after were who were ill Judges of Superstition and Religion And what ever Religiosus may signifie let the Doctor shew us any Protestant Divine that ever took Superstitio or Superstitiosus in a good sense But what is the meaning of those words n. 17. My pretensions in that place were onely this that Superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess Does he mean that Superstition never in any Authors signifies a criminous excess That he cannot say or that all Authors do not take it for a criminous excess the words may bear both senses that 's too dilate for the Doctor to affirm It 's enough for us if in
matter of Circumstance but not in matter of Worship 3. He confounds the universal Church in aftertimes with the Apostles as if their power were one and same in Instituting worship whereas the Apostles power was Divine the Churches succeeding but Humane The Church then May dispose order Institute Circumstances of worship to her members c. But may not meddle to Institute any worship not commanded by God which is prohibited p. 39. n. 5. because not commanded His proof of the Minor is voided by what hath been said that it is no part of worship or if so made is perfectly false the prohibition of God lying flat against all Additions of worship to the Rule that is all uncommanded worship And that was my Argument against it Because all Additions to the word in matter of worship be criminous and sinful and prohibited by Deut. 4.2 and elsewhere Dare or can the Doctor deny this in matter of worship I say not of Circumstances of worship Something he must and will say n. 6. The whole matter is devolved on this issue whether the text Deut. 4 2. and the second Commandment and others not cited be sufficient to prejudge the using or instituting any Ceremony or Festival not commanded by God Which is a perverse varying of the question I fear against his own Conscience which was professed by me and confessed so by him to be my mind to be of uncommanded Worship and not of Circumstances thereof And now let him consider what good this Suppletory of his hath done unless it be to confirm the Reader as well as my self that I have hit upon some of the true causes of his Mistakes it may be the Discourses following will discover some more at least Miscarriages n. 7. which may need his further vindication My Account thus far stands right upon the Audit and I doubt not will do so in the remaining parts when they be rightly cast up I am now in doubt and deliberation whether I shall need to proceed any further at present with the Tracts themselves till he hath supplied a new the Defects of this his Suppletory especially considering that much of what is here said is again and again repeated there Till then I might well forbear to go on with his Large Discourse He hath had above a year to answer my little Pamphlet as no doubt hee esteemes it and I hope he will grant me two or three years to answer his volume Exercitation 1. Of Superstition Section 1. In a just and methodical order of Tractation the Discourse of Superstition should precede that of Will-worship that being more general this last a Special under it c. FOr the order or method whether of those two should have the precedence the Doctor is not very solicitous to dispute p. 41. n. 1. Though it be certain sayes he that I am not of his mind that Will-worship is a species of Superstition yet I shall not engage in a dispute thereof c. It is hard that the Doctor and I cannot be of one mind almost in any thing whether it be because one of us are oft out of the way of truth or that one of us loves to have his hand against every man that differs from him in opinion let others judge and which of the two it is Sure I am the Doctor hath engaged sometimes in a dispute in a lesser matter then this is in opposition as one would think to his adversary not of his own judgement I shall not debate it with him but onely shew my judgement and the reason of it to clear what I first asserted True it is that Divines and Interpreters do render both the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this one word Superstitie Because as I take it they thought Will-worship to be Superstition But whether they thought all Superstition to be Will-worship is a question which is some do the reconciliation may perhaps be thus made by a distinction The whole first Table of the Decalogue being granted by all to be the onely Rule of worship as contradistinct to Justice or Charity in the second Table any way of worshipping God or any Circumstance made a part of worship by men may be called Will-worship as well as Superstition and in that larger sense are both one But if we speak distinctly of the matter of instituted Worship as distinct from the Object Manner Time then Will-worship that is worship devised and added by the will of man in regard of the Materials of it may more strictly taken be a species of Superstition because Superstition may be found in those other Circumstances named which is not in that strict sense called Will-worship But I shall not be bound to perswade the Doctor to be of my minde let him enjoy his owne thoughts That which he replies to n. 2. is the latter part of this Section about the Inquiry what Superstition is not so much by searching into the Monuments of Heathen Authors which is the Doctors way as by the Judgement of Divines c. He sayes There is no better way to understand the full importance of words then to examine them in their origination and usage among the best Authors Profane and Sacred the Scripture in Lactantius and Saint Austin c. As competent Judges of Superstition as his latter Divines that have reduced the use of all Ceremonies not commanded by God to the second Commandment c. Vnder the Title of Superstition Here are not many words but many miscarriages 1. To begin at the last and common mistake that he charges our later Divines to reduce all use of Ceremonies Circumstances he should say not commanded by God to the second Commandment as Superstitious which they intended onely of uncommanded worship not of Ceremonies unless they be made parts of worship 2. For the Origination of words and usage amongst Heathen Authors he knowes that usage is often changed in succeeding generations That which once was a good word is degenerated to signifie some thing ill or clean another thing as Latro Tyrannus Nebulo with many others And he that would now take those words in the first good sense yet hath he Authors Ancient enough for it would make himself ridiculous Suppose then Superstitio and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did primarily signifie Religion yet in after ages they came to signifie something ill or rather if they did first signifie something ill and afterwards had the hap among Heathens to get a good sense sometimes which soever of these be true there is no following the first Origination or usage of words but to have respect to the several Ages who are Masters of words Yet if we may believe Cicero De Nat. Deorum the eloquent Orator and a well-skil'd man in all Antiquities in his time he tells us as I touched before that they were first called Superstitiosi who totos dies precabantur immolabant ut liberi sibi
ancientest Latine Christian Authors who speaks fully the Language of our Reformed Divines Siquidem quae sine ullius aut Dominici aut Apostolici praeceptae authoritate fiunt ea non Religioni sed Superstitioni deputantur affectata coacta curiosi potius quam rationalis officii Where he gives an example of such Superstition There were in the Church at that time certain that contrary to the custome of the Church would * Sure this was not Superstitum cultus put off their cloaks when they went to prayer placing some Religion in that Ceremony as Heathens used to do to whom he answers Quod utique si fieri oporteret Apostoli qui quae de habitu orandi docent comprehendissent And comes off with an elegant Charientismus Nisi sequi putant Paulum penulam suam Adv. Marci l. 1. c. 5. in oratione penes Carpum reliquisse And the Doctor himself hath cited another like place out of Tertullian p. 16. n. 28. to put a difference between Superstition and Religion speaking of worshipping of two Gods Vererer nè abundantja officit Superstitio potius quam Religio crederetur Where abundantia officii may well signifie an excess in Religion 5. From Lactantius who in the place cited above upon another occasion though he approve not the notation Superstition nor yet of Religion given by Cicero à Relegendo yet clearly put 's the difference between Religion and Superstition Quid ergo est Nimirum Religio veri cultus Superstitio falsi Religiosos se putant cum sint Superstitiosi 6. From Saint Austin cited by Aquinas as the Doctor recites it p. 16. Cecidit bestia Superstitionis The beast of Superstition is destroyed by the first Commandment of the Decalogue prescribing the Worship of one God Tract of Superst s 13. He would not surely call that by the name of Religion And Austin is affirmed to say Deum à Religioso vereri à Superstioso timeri and consequently to that addes the Doctor Religio Deum colit Superstitio violat as Max. Tyrius compared a Pious man to a friend a Superstitious to a flatterer the Pious man comes to God without fear the Superstitious man with much fear This beside much more that might be produced out of Saint Austin is enough to shew Austin took Superstition for a vice contrary to Religion 7. From the great School-man and all his followers in the Romish School whose definition of Superstition we have so often heard clearly differences Superstition from Religion It is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess making worshipping of Creatures to be but one Species of it and Illegimate-worship in general to be the other which also hath several Species under it as we have shewed Before him the Gloss Interlin gave this Superstitio est Religio supra modum servata on Col. 2. Which what is it but Religion so called in the excess 8. From all our Reformed Divines Forraign and Domestick who all generally take Superstition in an ill sense as an addition to or excess of Religion and never in a good sense All this and much more the Doctor knew well enough and yet shakes them all off as of so small authority that scarce worth producing as we shall hear anon But perhaps the Doctor will say p. 71. n. 4. He never imagined Superstition truly so called to have no ill in it But what does he truly call Superstition nothing willingly but worshipping of Daemons Hear what he sayes See n. 7. The thing which I contest is not this that the Worship of Daemons is or ever was true or lawful but that beside this adding the like of illegitimate Worship there is nothing else n. 9. which hath been lookt on as simply bad in Superstition particularly not the excess as that signifies unprescribed uncommanded Worship which is the onely matter of the present contest with such as the Diatribist But first does he not say Illegitimate-worship is lookt upon as simply bad as well as Worship of Daemons what difference is there between Vncommanded Worship and Illegitimate Does not Illegitimate signifie Unlawful Worship and is not Uncommanded Worship also unlawful His meaning is as afore that Illegitimate signifies that which is forbidden by Law which is more then Vncommanded No it 's the very same for what Worship soever is not commanded is forbidden 2. If this be all the contest with me and such as I am the controversie will soon be at an end For I mean by Vncommanded Worship nothing but forbidden Worship and that the Doctor hath granted or cannot deny to be an excess super statutum an addition and simply bad and unlawful I shall therefore accept of his condition offered and invert his own words Never to apply the word any otherwise n. 5. then the Scripture and Christian writers do for Daemon Worship or undue Illegitimate Worship upon condition that he will grant that in that sense the word signifies an excess in Religion in any part of Uncommanded Worship I say Vncommanded Worship not Uncommanded Circumstances or Rites unless made parts of Worship The contest not being at all of the latter as is confessed Yet renounced again in the following words p. 37. n. 10. He must set the question as elsewhere he doth of excessive as that signifies no more than Uncommanded Worship without the addition of being false it being evident that I defend not false Worship of any kinde to be good but that Ceremonies or Institutions of Worship not commanded by God may be perfectly lawful and that is the onely question between us Is not here first a contradiction to that he said before that the onely matter of contest was of excess n. 9. as that signifies Vncommanded Worship now it is onely of Ceremonies c. not commanded by God 2. Is not here a second contradiction that he defends not False Worship to be good and yet defends Vncommanded Worship which is False Worship And 3. Is it not a third contradiction to say that I elsewhere set the question of excessive as that signifies Uncommanded False Worship and yet to say I must set it as it signifies Ceremonies or Circumstances c. not commanded which he confesses oft I do disclaime Here are as many mistakes as well could be in so few words The rest concerning Acts 25.19 17.23 have sufficiently been spoken to before and I pass it by Onely one thing must be taken notice of and explained to rectifie the Doctors understanding of those words of mine p. 76. n. 20. Supérstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more then in the comparative which sayes he are not very intelligible to him at least But the fault was none of mine but the Printers for want of a Comma after excess then the sense is clear thus n. 21. Superstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more then that is much more then in the comparative which exceeds the positive Superstitiosiores given
Doctor with that he sayes The Apostle does not speak of Commands but Doctrines Whereas I say he speaks of Commands as well as Doctrines both the words are here commands I say not of the Magistrate that I disclaim as well as he but of False-Teachers See my 4. s and his own acknowledgment p. 104. n. 1. who laid those Abstinencies upon their Disciples as their Doctrines and Commands but were nothing but Traditions and commands of men who had no Authority in point of Worship so to impose upon the people of God and then all his labour in the 3. and 4. numb is utterly lost What the meaning of Commands here is and whether the same with Doctrines as the Doctor sayes we shall consider anon But one thing must here be remembred he sayes That the Seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick Hereticks p. 103. n. 5. This is once afore said by him and many times more hereafter I know not well how oft I shall here speak to it once for all and but point at it when ever it comes again 1. The Gnostick Hereticks were not yet hatched when Paul writ this Epistle to the Colossians I finde no newes of them till the time of Basilides Carpocrates and Valentinian who all lived in the second Century about 120. or 130. These were the first that cal'd themselves Gnosticks as men of greater knowledge then any others So Iraeneus lib. 1. Of Heresie c. 34. Ex his c. from these Basilides Carpoor c. Who were formerly cal'd Sinoniani the multitude of the Gnosticks did arise So Tertull. Advers Valentin Atque ita insolescentes doctrinae Valentiniorum in sylvas jam exoleverunt Gnosticorum Upon which words Rhenanus thus Valentiniani superbo nomine se Gnosticos appellabant Horam principem facit Irenaeus Valentinianum I know how the Doctor will evade by saying The name indeed began then but the Doctrines were the same with those of Nicholas and Simon c. who lived in the Apostles times So Epiphan and Austin seem to say But that 's but an equivocation or evasion to say the Gnosticks were in that time and meant here by the Apostle because they suckt some of their poyson from those Hereticks Saint Paul therefore could not properly intend the Gnosticks 2. This is Estius a Papists gloss upon 1 Tim. 6.20 Oppositions of science falsly so called a fitter text to be applied to the Gnosticks then this of ours Quamvis credi potest Gnosticorum nomen non statim cum haeresi emersisse sed aliquantò post tamen Apostolorum temporibus rem ipsam jam tum à Simone Nicolao originem accepisse certum est But in that sense the Gnosticks may be said to have their Original from the ancient Baalites and Heathens who were as abominable in their filthy worships of their Gods as the Gnosticks lightly could be 3. The best Commentators on this place never dream'd of the Gnosticks but generally say the Apostle opposes himself against two Sects then troubling the Church First some Philosophers turn'd Christians who brought in Philosophical speculations at these he strikes verse 8. and 18. in Worship of Angels Secondly some Judaizing Christians who would keep up the Ceremonial Law with the Gospel against these are the 16.20 21 22. verses In particular the 21 verse hath clear reference to the Abstinencies formerly commanded the Jews but now abolished by Christ Touch not taste not c. as some say However there is little or no colour to bring in the Gnosticks here who though they agreed with others in abstaining from such meats and drinks yet the chief poyson of that Sect was in abandoning and vilifying of Marriage and in other abominable filthinesses for which they had not the least pretence from the Jewes with whom the Doctor sayes they joyn'd to abstain from Marriage that being never prohibited to the Jewes as some meats and drinks were yet the Doctor speaks hereafter See p. 109. n. 3. n. 10. as if the Apostle here intended them that forbad Marriage as the Gnosticks after did And I do a little wonder how he mist a Criticisme in the 21. ver Ne attigeris touch not that is Marry not so the Gnosticks said for which he had a fair text of Scripture 1 Cor. 7.1 It 's good for a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to touch a woman that is not to Marry So in the text here Touch not first Marry not Taste not first such or such a meat c. But enough of this at present for it will often meet us again For the rest in this his third Section it will come to be condered in a fitter place onely saying now That a shew of wisdom is applyable to * No justifiable humility p. 112. n. 10. And austerity is of the same kinde there humility and the rest as well as to Will-worship all being equally naught and condemned Sect. 4. That we have not mistaken the Doctors meaning will appear by that which he addes c. THe chief business in this Section is to speak to the instance of David appointing the Levites to serve from the age of 20. years whereas God by Moses had appointed it but from 25. p. 105. n. 6. The Doctor sayes he made this alteration upon prudential reasons as a King not as a Prophet or by inspiration as my places of Scripture import 'T is true there are prudential reasons given for what he did but prudence of man is not sufficient to alter the institutions of God It 's this prudence that hath undone the Church that men will be wiser then God in altering and adding to the Rule of his Worship See 2 Chron. 29.25 for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets Let the Doctor look once more upon the text 1 Chron. 28.12 13. In the 12. verse it 's said David gave to Solomon his Son the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit c. and 13. vers Also for the courses of the Priests and the Levites and all the work of the service of the house of the Lord. If the Doctor saw not this he was negligent for I pointed to the place if he saw them he willfully winked against the light resolv'd belike to maintain what ever he once sayes right or wrong Sect. 5. The full importance of the words vers 22. he says is this That when those abstinencies are imposed c. COncerning the sense of those words p. 107. n. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know no reason why the Dr. should forsake the Interpretation of almost all Interpreters unless because he loves to be singular He says the Apostle speaks not of the meats but of the commands of abstaining I granted this might be the sense but yet it might well be rendered as our Translation and all but the Doctor do Which all are to perish with the using that is That now being out-dated they perish
teaching consisted This might be true of some false teachers that preached up the Ceremonial Law after it was abolished as still obliging by divine precept but there was no colour for the Pharisees to pretend to a divine precept in their new Traditions being known not to be commanded by God in the Jewish Law and therefore they call'd them onely Traditions of the Elders They being men of great repute for knowledge and piety did invent and then by their own example commend some new wayes of worshipping God and then by their Authority they had got in their Disciples hearts as pious and devout men did lay their own doctrines upon them and they stooped and were subjected to them They did not therefore so much as pretend them to be the Will and Commandments of God sure our Saviour would not have been silent in such a blasphemy but onely that they would be pleasing and acceptable to God as being more then he commanded which is the opinion of all formal Hypocrites in their Will-worship And I cannot but wonder the Doctor should hold our that they pretended their Doctrines to be Divine precepts when he makes them differ from the Karraim in this that they transcended the Law in their Worship in uncommanded Worship Now to say their Worship or doctrines of Worship were Divine precepts was to derogate from that height of excellency which themselves and the Doctor conceited to be in them Let him confider it But to convince him the more I could tell him what Calvins judgement was of that text Matt. 15.9 Omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic damnari minimè dubium est but the Doctor will easily slight his judgement I shall therefore give him the gloss of a learned Papist whom he more regards It is Tolet on Luc. 11. Annotat. 84. The Priests had brought in many novel things though Moses had with great terrour threatned them not to adde any thing of which number of additions were those washings There was a double fault 1. The innovation it self was no slight fault c. 2. Another was their Superstition The Pharisees had put in those washings not for any natural or civil cleanliness but as pertaining to Religion who so did contemn them were judged to offend against Gods Worship and whoso did observe them seemed chiefly to regard Gods Worship in them But this was in no wise lawful c. for Christ rejected these washings as superstitious Mark 7. In vain do they Worship me teaching the doctrines and precepts of men i. e. such things as men set up of themselves against the Commandment of God Not as the Doctor such things which though they were the doctrines and commandments of men yet were imposed as Commandments of God Judge Reader which is the better Interpreter But supposing not yielding they did hold them out as Divine precepts that I said was an abuse of them yet the fault might be they made them parts of Worship that would make them more destructive And this our Saviour particularly chargeth upon the Pharisees In vain do they Worship me They made their Traditions to be parts of Worship I asked whether placing Worship in the observation of those ordinances though not imposed as Gods Commands were not an abuse of them to destruction The Doctor answers as a man amused by asking me p. 111. n. 8. What I mean by Worship if such Worship as a man may justly prescribe or practice ceremonies perfectly lawful or more what is sure to be accepted c. 't is certain it were no abuse Here Reader observe 1. That the Doctor grants a man may justly prescribe and then practise his own prescribed Worship 2. That he calls Ceremonies Worship which hitherto he call'd onely Circumstances of Worship But he knows I mean it of Worship what then If he mean the commanded Worship of God then his question implies a contradiction for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in that is taught as a command of God or else it were not Gods prescribed Worship which yet it is supposed to be I mean it not of commanded Worship it were ridiculous indeed to ask such a question but of uncommanded Worship devised of his own will against the will of God may not a man devise false Worship and yet not pretend it to be imposed by Divine precept Surely Papists do so in many of their Will-worships holding them our not as Divine commands but as things very pleasing to God and rewardable by him c. Upon this my question falls to which he sayes nothing but gives as strange a reason for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in that is taught as a command of God else it were not Gods prescribed Worship Which is proved false by the former instance and begs the question That no man places Worship in any thing but he must teach it as a Command of God which I believe the Doctor will contradict by his own practice placing the Worship of God in some things and yet denying it to be a Command of God I shall take another instance from himself in the next number n. 9. He falsly supposes abstinence from marriage to be meant in Col. 2.23 See p. 107. n. 3. n. 10. It is certain abstinence from marriage may be lawfully practised by him that can bear it all the error is in imposing it on others c. Suppose now a man does not impose it upon others yet places the Worship of God in it to Worship God by it as Papists do whether the Doctor do so we shall hear anon I would ask whether this be not an error to place Worship in that which God doth not command Whether Col. 2.23 be a setting down the abuse and defining wherein it consists or no shall be tryed hereafter Sect. 6. Yet let us hear wherein the Doctor places the danger c. WHat ever is repeated in this Section by the Doctor is fully answered in the last and the Doctors notion I still say is singular and his own That the false teachers held out their doctrines as Commandments of God which no Interpreters of the place do touch upon I shall onely observe what Estius notes upon the text answering this question Seeing the Apostle speaks here of Legal Rites instituted by God how doth he call them the precepts and doctrines of men which in the Scripture are taken in the evil sense as also are the Traditions of men viz. those things which are invented and delivered by an humane sense and spirit He gives divers answers 1. Some took the place to be meant of the superstitious precepts of the Gentile Philosophy or Simonian School so did the Doctor p. 110. n 5. at least in part But this exposition is refuted For those precepts were Jewish Touch not c. as those afore Let no man judge you in meat or drink which without doubt was spoken of Jewish observations 2. Others answer thus Those Institutions of the Mosaical law being
calls for it and then it is a duty or he calls not for it and then it can be no act of true self-denial much less an act of Worship pleasing to God For thus I argue either the party hath the gift of continency and then he denies himself in nothing what self-denial is it for a man to deny himself drink when he is not a thirst Or be hath not the gift of continency and then he may not deny himself the remedy and satisfactions tending to it because then he exposes himself to temptations But now supposing a man hath the gift of continency and so resolves to keep his Virgine if this man should make his self-denial or Caelibate a part of Religion and Worship as Papists do he will be guilty of Will worship And if he shall beside make this state of Caelthate See Q. of Divorce Sect. 36. Not commanded at all but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection an higher even the highest or greatest perfection and so advance it above marriage in himself or another he comes near to the Gnosticks in defaming and depressing marriage an honourable ordinance of God and preferring his own fancy before it and may justly fear that God will give him over to vile affections and abominable lusts not much short of the Gnosticks as is visible amongst Papists for dishonouring honest marriage And now I could if I listed throw out another Apple of contention before the Doctor Whether he that assuredly hath the gift of continency is not by God called to single life I will give him some reasons for the Affirmative and leave them to his Determination 1. Every Special gift of God is a Special Talent to be improved for the glory of the Giver But such is the gift of continency a special gift 1 Cor. 7.7 Matt. 19.11 All men cannot receive this saying save those to whom it is given And therefore he that hath it must improve it for the kingdom of Heavens sake ver 12. 2. Our Saviour seemes to lay a command upon it ver 12. He that is able to receive it let him receive it Which is not a bare permission but a kinde of precept And this in the judgement of some learned whom the Doctor cannot well reject The first is the B. of N. Doctor Hall of Honour of married Clergy lib. 1. s 7. Who thus speaks somewhat in our Doctors language Neither do we think that the earth affords any thing more glorious then Eunuchisme for the kingdom of God which is therefore commended by our Saviour not as a thing meerly arbitrary by way of advice but of charge to the able Qui potest capere capiat And a little after this he sayes of such as upon trial finde they have the gift and make profession of it The observation whereof if they through their own neglect shall let fall they cannot be excused from sin or freed from censure But then it can be no Free-will-offering but a duty The other is the learned Doctor Hamond who seemes to me to make it obligatory to him that is able to bear it pag. 211. n. 27. Virginity I hope is not every mans duty but at the utmost his who can receive it If then it be his duty that can receive it it is neither Free-will-offering nor high degree of perfection which yet these two whose Testimonies are cited do seem to make it However if it be free for him that hath the gift to marry if yet he should abstain voluntarily accounting it a part of Gods Worship or a degree of higher perfection it will I think prove no better then a sinful Will-worship But more anon of this Those men that hold Free-will in natural men to Good as well as to Evil no marvail if they talk so much of Free-will-offerings and self-denials in these things which an Heathen or an Hypocrite may do as well as they The words cited out of Chrysost distinguishing acts of mans will from Commandments of God and making them first p. 124. n. 5. more rewardable then the acts which are under precept will fall in again to be spoken to more fitly till then I shall forbear That abstinence from marriage n. 7. was never commanded by any Law I never doubted but I never dreamed that that was here censured by the Apostle no Interpreters beside himself that I know ever so expounded it But the Doctor having once assumed it as serviceable to his purpose most confidently carries it on as yeilded him and all along applies it to the Gnostick Heresie who I said were not hatched till Paul had long been dead in the second century Sect. 10. First he sayes he will give his reasous c. THat the Doctor in taking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense complies with some Papists is evidently true that most Papists take it p. 125. n. 1. in an ill sense is also clearly true yet he confesses himself unable to give any answer as not guessing wherein the objection lies But presently after findes my meaning The objection lies here that the Doctor for carrying on his own designe had rather joyn and comply with those few Papists who oppose the Orthodox sense of the word then with our own Divines and those many Papists which agree with them which oft they do not in the ill-sense of the word For not onely my self and partners as he scornfully speaks but the learnedst Doctors and Bishops of our Church do so expound it That the Doctor should be cross to them and to the more ingenuous learned Papists is something to be admired But hear what he sayes p. 126. n. 3. 1. He borrowed not this Interpretation from any Popish Writer but from the weighing of the text it self c. It may be so yet may he comply with them As Doctor Montacute professed he never read word of Arminius yet was as perfect an Arminian as if he had studied him many years It 's no wonder that men of parts do meet in the same errour As our vulgar people on the other side and all the Sectaries for the most part do meet in the errours of Arminius Vniversal Redemption Free-will to good and evil c. Yet never heard of or read Arminius or the Doctors Fundamentalls 2. Yet well fare a stout heart He sayes he shall not startle at the Interpretation upon that account many Papists having given true senses of Scripture But sure then all our Divines agree with them as they with us truth forcing them to it Now such is the text or word before us most of the Popish Interpreters take it in an ill-sense and render it by Superstition and that 's a strong Testimony against an Adversary But 3. he will retort the argument upon me The sense which he hath given is owned by most of the Papists then he that complies with most of the Papists and not he which complies with some few must be guilty of that
principle upon the second Commandment which will fully conclude this point which must be often repeated to silence his confidence this it is God is to be worshipt in a way peculiar to him and appointed by him Then all Worship not commanded by him is forbidden let the Doctor now go on and say Certainly none no word sounds that way unless every Ceremony devised by man c. not particularly under precept be presently metamorphosed into a graven Image But the thing is proved sufficiently above by Scripture and testimony of most approved Authors to which I remit him And now let him consider how well he hath vindicated his six reasons for a good sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this one place Sect. 17 18. We have done with the first undertaking c. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendered by Superstition by the Romanists and by the learned and ever renowned Master Calvin may easily be made good from the definition of Superstition given by the School-man which is justified above and by the description of it by Mr. Calvin which is this Vox ipsa Superstitio c. The word Superstition may seem to be so called because not contented with the manner of Worship prescribed it heaps up a superfluous heap of vain things Calv. Instit l. 1. c. 12. n. 1. For Will-worship partakes of the definition it is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess and is an addition of superfluous and vain Worship And I said not Superstition and Will-worship are all one as he charges me to say but clearly otherwise Superstition or will-worship p. 157. n. 6. are more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Daemonum cultus which is but one species of Superstition They differ as genus and species all Will-worship is Superstition but all Superstition is not Will-worship strictly taken as was discoursed above ad p. 41. n. 1. But if Will-worship be a species of Superstition they that interpreted the word so did but call the Species by the name of the genus which is very ordinary And that Superstition is more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is evident because that 's but one species of Superstition there are many more given by the School-man and himself above But now we shall hear him distribute wil-worship into species The truth is n. 7. that the general Will-worship as that comprehends all worship uncommanded by God hath several species under it Jewish out-dated and so now uncommanded Worship Heathenish forbidden and so uncommanded Worship and finally Christian acceptable yet not commanded acts or circumstances or degrees of Worship Here we have three sorts of VVill-worship Jewish Heathen Christian The first uncommanded the second forbidden the third not commanded But first the Jewish out-dated Worship is forbidden so the Doctor said above p. 19. n. 32. and so agrees with Heathen Will-worship 2. The Christian is no VVorship but acts or circumstances of Worship commanded and then it is no VVill worship upon this he brings all to two species VVill-worship will-devised VVorship may be of two sorts as the generical word VVorship may either true or false Heathen or Christian and as the one is ill so the other is certainly good But first Worship is either true or false true when commanded by God false when devised by men that 's VVill-worship and will he divide false-worship into true or false Christian or Heathen 2. Are Christian or Heathen the same with true or false the one ill the other good Is there no good VVill-worship among the Heathens no bad among Christians so it seemes by the Doctors words 3. He gave us above six if not species * He calls them six species of VVill-worship p. 97. n. 14. yet notions of VVill-worship ad p. 96. n. 6. and now he brings them first to three then to two as if he were confounded and knew not where to fix And to speak properly VVill-worship hath no species though Superstition have onely there may be some particulars as there are of false-worship which the Doctor may call Individua if he please but not species as ergo VVill-worship is Heathenish Jewish or Christian this is not a distribution into species but in adjuncts or subjects Now true it is the Doctor takes VVill-worship in a good sense for true and lawful Worship but I take it in an ill sense for false worship and the Doctor must not beg his sense nor I mine both must prove it or relinguish it And now let the Reader judge who is in the right I shall but propound this argument and leave it to him If worship be therefore onely true because it is commanded by God then all worship not commanded by God devised by men is false But the Autecedent is most certain the consequence also undeniable to any reasonable man let who will make out the conclusion But hear again The falseness consists in its being devised by mans will p. 158. n. 10 not simply but in opposition to Gods i. e. when it is forbidden this we accept of and say all worship devised by mans will stands in opposition to the will of God and is forbidden the Negative part of the second Commandment is God will not be served by any worship not prescribed by himself and no addition may by man be made to the rule of worship The Doctor hath so long dream'd of uncommanded Worship in contradistinction to forbidden Worship as if VVorship uncommanded by God the same with devised by men were not forbidden when as it is therefore forbidden because not commanded by God as I am forced by the Doctors importunity to repeat too often No says he VVhat is forbidden is more then not commanded It is so in the second Table but in the first of worship not commanded and forbidden is all one The Doctor therefore supposes what is not to be granted when he says n. 11. That worship which is supposed not to be forbidden is resolved not to be false He must say that worship devised by men which is not forbidden is not false but that implies that some worship devised by men is not forbidden which now he may see if he will to be false Gods not commanding he says implies his permission and so a liberty allowed by God c. If this were true the Heathens and Turks VVorship were all lawful for they are not commanded ergo permitted He will say They are forbidden which is more then not commanded This is not to be seen in that former proposition but I close with him and say All worship not commanded is forbidden I conclude this Section with a memento to the Reader to take notice how much the Doctor hath forgot himself to plead for VVill worship worship devised by men which both is contrary to his own assertions heretofore and presently again he pleads not for new sorts or kindes of Worship not commanded by God and to his present designe
Gods good grace and strength in us and then what place for gloryings p. 224. n. 3. But these men give Paul and themselves leave and liberty to boast for a work done without or above a command To preach the Gospel for hire is a precept and so a debt no great matter of excellence or boasting in it but to Preach it freely is the honour of my will and hath a greater reward and in that respect there is matter of boasting VVhat Papist could say more 3. Nay some Papists say less Nec verò convenit Paulinae modestiae c. It beseemes not Pauls modesty to promise himself a greater reward and glory with God than the rest should receive who preached the Gospel sincerely though they took hire especially seeing that concerned them also which he said above ver 12. To give no offence or hinderance to the Gospel of God Estius in locum 4. But yet further Paul himself makes it a duty to Preach freely when just occasion is offered for so he speaks to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20.34 35. You your selves know that these hands have ministred to my necessities and to them that were with me I have shewed you all things how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak So labouring ye ought which implies a duty See 1 Thes 2.9 2 Thes 3.7 6 9. p. 186. n. 6. where the people are poor and weak unable to supply their Minister with his hire he may not exact it And this will bring me to the next thing enlarged by the Doctor And that is that the Fathers seem to call it a voluntary act of Piety and the highest degree of munificence above command c. But this must be candidly understood as I said above the general command That they that Preach the Gospel shall live of the Gospel but not above a special call by circumstances hapning Things that are restrained by circumstances says learned Chamier are not therefore said to be unlawful nay Tom. 3. l. 21. c. 21. p. 818. s 75. are therefore said to be lawful because they are not restrain'd but by certain circumstances It is the Apostles own Rule All things are lawful but all things are not expedient And it is another maxime of Divines Quicquid non expedit quatenus non expedit non licet Whatever is not expedient at this time or place to be done is unlawful to be done but then it cannot be above all command This will not down with the Doctor They that received hire were not faulty sayes Chrysost which they must be if bound by any special call as the Diatribist from Chamier but against the whole contexture of the place to do what they did n. 8. There is no great sense in these words should he not rather have said They were faulty if they were bound by any special call not to do as they did that is not to receive hire which they did receive However the reason is not beseeming the Doctors strength might they not be faultless in receiving hire where the people were able and yet faulty when they were poor which is the special call if they did claim it But the Apostle himself clears it to be faulty for him in that case to have taken hire of them That I abuse not my power in the Gospel So most Interpreters render it But the Doctor loves to swim against the stream and renders the words that I use not my power c. make no use of it He knows the word signifies sometime and often to abuse as well as to use why must it needs be taken here in the latter sense because it will better fit the Doctors designe of uncommanded performances or highest acts of Piety above command I could refer him to Chamier Ubi supr s 78. to take his answers to Bellarmine urging this very sense of the word and vindicating the authorities by him brought for it with this proem Audiat Bellarminus Jesuita suorū Jesuitarū judicium Where he reckons up Salmeron Justinian and and others not Jesuites Cajetane Thomas Lyranus and the Lovanienses who all render it by abutar abuse and give reasons for it take one Fuisset enim illud abuti potestate c. For that was to abuse his power if he had required his hire and in that thing had derogated from the authority of the Gospel So Salmeron so the rest to the same purpose But the Doctor cites Scripture for his sense of the word 1 Cor. 7.31 Vsing the world as if they used it not So he reads it but ours and others as not abusing it And if the Apostle had intended his sense he would have kept the same word as he did before in the other instances and have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that 's but a conjecture let 's try if from the scope and context of the Apostles words it may not appear that it must be rendred that I abuse not my power If it was a sin for the Apostle in that case to have taken hire then he had abused his power to take it and consequently he intended to say If he had made the Gospel chargeable to them he had abused his power But the Antecedent is true the consequence undeniable ergo The Antecedent I prove thus If his taking hire of them in that case had been to the hinderance of the success of the Gospel then he bad sinned in taking of it But so it had been This I prove from verse 12. We have not used this power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simple verb but suffer all things the loss of our hire lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ Implying that if he had used that power he had hindered the Gospel of Christ which certainly had been a sin I know not what the Doctor can say to this Chamier ubi supra s 80 81. c. unless with Bellarm. he tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies Interruption not a Scandal and so not to be a sin to take hire though some Retardation of the Gospel had followed which if he say let him there see his answer and more with it But see the luck of it his own phrase he that differs from Estius in his true Interpretation of this text yet agrees with him in the false consequence and abuse of it to prove works of Supererogation onely the Doctor dare not speak out as the other doth Estius asks this question In locum How Paul by not taking wages did a work of supererogation if he was bound by charity not to take his hire lest he should scandalize the weak or leave an occasion to the false Apostles of glorying against him Hear his answer A work of supererogation is so called not that when it is done hath none or the least obligation by the Law of Charity but that which simply and nakedly considered is not under precept but a counsel although
have sinned and therefore never defined that to be the Romanists doctrine But sure it is the Romanists do say and affirm some Saints not to have sinned the Virgine Mary for one to be free not onely from actual sins but original also and he knows who was the man of whom some of them affirm Bonadventure videtur Adam in hoc homine non peccasse And then there is more reason to found Supererogation upon such as never sinned then on such as have sinned and yet pay God by satisfaction the latter have enough to do to satisfie for their own sins and cannot well expect to Supererogate for themselves or others but the former having never sinned that is done all that is commanded which might satisfie God and his Law for themselves might with more colour undertake to satisfie God for others by doing something not commanded And yet by the way I would ask a Romanist whether if Adam had not sinned as the Angels do not he or they could supererogate for themselves or others If they say they could not because they in doing all that is commanded did but their duty then would I infer much less can a sinner Supererogate by doing something not commanded If they shall say they might Supererogate as their principles and the Doctors too seem to import by doing more then is commanded I would desire to see the reason why they should not found their Supererogation rather upon that first part of the distinction That to Supererogate supposeth that the person hath paid God all that is due to him by doing all that is commanded him by way of perfect obedience that is hath never sinned seeing that is more reasonable as hath been said I leave them and the Doctor to resolve this doubt And this indeed the Doctor comes to n. 8. Supererogo p. 226. is to lay out all and more and from the opinion of pious mens doing so the Romanists have clearly raised their treasure of the Church as the bank into which their payments are made Mark that to Supererogate is to lay out all that is commanded and more that is to pay God all that is due by way of perfect obedience and to lay out more that is something not commanded Which is that which he findes fault with in me that Supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex or rather rogavit for that was my word however it was changed into erogavit Now upon this the Doctor makes himself and his Reader merry n. 7. About the Etymologie of supererogation which either my fancy or something else he says suggested to me as I did derive Superstition from Super statutum In both he does me manifest injury in the latter against his own profession and I fear his conscience who said I did not raise the Etymologie of Superstition from Super statutum as indeed I did not but onely said that Superstition was by our Divines well applied to signifie that which the Scripture calls addition to the word or Rule of Worship as being Super statutum which rather respected the thing then the Origination of the word Superstition as appears above In the former he does the same for I do not make the super quod rogavit lex the Etymologie but thus Supererogare is as much that is in sense as super quod rogavit lex And this I shall evidence against all contradiction 1. I turned to the word in my Dictionary and there found Supererogatio to be rendered attesting August for it a giving more then is required required by what but by the Law 2. Supererogator rendered out of the same Authour one that giveth more then he needeth that is more then he is bound to give by any Law 3. Supererogo to give moreover jam ante erogatis addo which supposes him to give all required by the Law and to adde something not required by it and is not all this as much as super quod rogavit lex Again for erogavit I finde that it hath this sense beside others rogando aliquid elicere as well as expendere to lay out And if the word erogare signifie at any time to require or procure by asking the Etymologie might pass with reasonable Criticks Supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex Besides all this Papists who best understand what they mean by works of Supererogation Estius in 1. ad Cor. c. 9. v. 15. call them works of Counsels that is those which are commended so that yet absolutely there are no precepts delivered concerning them That is works done more then the Law required Lastly the Doctor himself in the place newly cited from n. 8. says as much as I do in sense Supererogo is to lay out all and more and from the opinion of pious mens doing so the Romanists have raised their treasure of the Church Nay it s more then I said for I did not say it is as much as to lay out all that is to do all that is commanded by the Law and more but onely more then the Law required though he had not done all required by the Law And upon this the Dr. founded their Supererogation refusing the former part of the distinction But now I would ask how can the pious Romanists be said to Supererogate that is to lay out all and more if not first by perfect keeping of the Law wherewith they are entrusted and then doing something more laying out of their own stock in a Counsel of perfection and what is this but more then the Law required and by so doing to make satisfaction for others sins having none of their own to satisfie for He were simple that would go about to satisfie God for others sins by doing things commanded to himself or to satisfie for others who needs it for his own sins It must then suppose he hath kept the Law and that he supererogates by doing more then the Law required which needing not himself he is content it be laid out for others that need it And that the Romanists do hold many of their pious Saints can and do perfectly keep the Law the Doctor is not ignorant what he thinks he can do I know not sure I am he says Christs yoke is no made up of impossible precepts and so its possible for a pious man perfectly to keep them If he say but he does not hold the most pious man never sinned though he may attain to such perfection in time * Doing all that is commanded p. 228. n. 14. The evil which is or may be adherent to it a good work being pardoned by God c. ad pag. 220. numb 55. numb 8. as to keep the Law and so Supererogation cannot be founded upon the first part of the distinction that the person never sinned I answer if those former sins be pardoned satisfaction being made by Christ they are as if they never had been and then when he is arrived at such perfection as
understands that my main designe in undertaking this work was primarily to manifest the Superstition and Will-worship in the ordinary observation of the chief Festivals and the rest and secondarily to justifie the abolition of them against which the Doctor hath so much declamed For which end I took in as I said at first his other two Tracts of Superstition and Will worship to make a clear discovery of that which I saw the Doctor had clouded what those two Crimes were which beside the Riot were charged upon his Festival that so the Application of them to the Festival in particular might be the more easie and obvious to every intelligent Reader For if Superstition and Will-worship be as I have proved them to be from the Testimonies of Orthodox Divines and of the Doctor himself and they criminous And then the Observers of the Festivals be proved guilty of those two crimes and the Doctor as deep as any which onely remain to be made good I shall venture to make all indifferent but judicious Readers yea and the Doctor himself in his sedate and impartial judgement both witnesses and judges of my conclusion If the Doctor himself shall lend me both my premises even sometimes totidem verbis I hope he will not be so uncivil or unnatural as not to own the conclusion as a childe of his own begetting though it hath been several times brought home and laid at his door but he hath gone in and out and took no notice of it I shall once more lay it before him But first some other business takes us up to be briefly dispatched rather by way of strictures then a set and continued discourse That the custome of a Church in things indifferent is somewhat considerable I denied not p. 231. n. 3. But when humane customes are degenerated into superstition and made Will-worship that custome though never so ancient is not to be pleaded He may see that my scope was onely this to beat down degenerated customes pretended onely to be ancient and Apostolical and withal to retort the argument intended by him more sutably to the text alluded to The Apostles and prime Church had no such custome as his Festival therefore they are contentious who plead for the continuancy of a custome so degenerated Whence the Doctors testimonies are indeed ex abundanti needless and superfluous except to shew his reading That Christians should comply with the customes of the places whither they come That is n. 4. c. while they are in things indifferent and neither burthenous by their number nor vitiated by the former abuses But he knows that Augustine in his time which was early to us complain'd of the yoke of Ceremonies introduced and wisht them abolished and so much for that Section How those Heathen usages p. 233. n. 3. that stuck so long to the Festival came in or when it is not * See n. 8. worth the while to debate it would be a better service for the Advocates of the Festival to study how to get them out which I fear they have not much troubled themselves withal Sure we are many customes came in in compliance as with the Jews on one side so with Heathens on the other I know he remembers well enough who said Ita bellè Ethnicos in hac re Polydor. Virg. de Invent. Rer. l. 6. c. 8. p. 234. n. 7. ut in nimis multis aliis aemulamur Though neither I nor he can exactly tell when that compliance first began Suppose that which the Doctor sayes be true At the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian and so some others from the heathen also 't is possible and imaginable But it s as true which he addes they were not taught them by Christianity Christian Religion taught them no such things nor intended their continuance but yet they were continued a long time Hence his argument for Infant Baptisme of that I think he means it also from the custome of the Jewes to Baptize is not constringent to a gain-sayer I believe he findes it so in his conflict with Master Tombs for how easie were it to answer as I remember he does it was the custome of the Jewes to Circumcise after Christianty began to keep the old Sabbath what 's that to Christians And if my judgement were of any worth with the Doctor I should make bold to tell him my conjecture in this case It s very probable that at the first beginning of Christianity such things or customes as the Sabbath the Paschal and Pentecost Festivals might adhere to the Christian though not taught it by Christianâ—y that they should be continued as Christian Holy-days and so some Heathenish customes in like manner from the first plantation of the Faith But then I would infer 1. That the Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost called after Easter and Whitsuntide were no Apostolical constitutions but rather charitable condescensions of the Apostles and after Planters to win the Jews to the Christian Religion But not as taught them by Christianity nor to continue any more then the old Sabbath or Circumcision c. Which by degrees vanished Else I would ask why was not the old Sabbath perpetuated in the Church Christian aswel as Easter and Whitsuntide there being more to be said for it in the Apostolical practice and other wayes then is or can be produced for those Fostivals as I have elsewhere said 2. I would also infer that Festivals were continued or exchanged for some Heathenish ones as Christmas for the Saturnalia to win them the better to the faith not to be continued longer then the Faith was well fettled But such is the mischief of humane policies in Religion that ill usages once brought in can seldom or hardly be gotten out again 3. The Doctors argument is as little constringent as mine that those usages must needs be brought in at the first conversion of a nation which might come in by degrees The time and Authour of our conversion p. 235. n. 1. is as uncertain as the former and confessed by the Doctor to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business of Festivals And therefore I shall no longer draw the Sawe of controversie therein but leave the Doctor to his own conjectures for they are no better and proceed to something of more concernment And that is about the institution and observation of Easter by which standard all other Festivals are to be rated as the Doctor says p. 243. n. 10. which if we may believe him was instituted or at least observed by the Apostles themselves The trial whereof is referred p. 241. n. 2. not to Scripture which an Apostolical institution which is acknowledged elsewhere to be Divine might justly expect but to Tradition out of most uncertain Histories unfit to build our faith upon Eusebius who lived in the fourth Centurie a great distance from the
he means it thus n. 15. They made no Laws for the observing of Festivals but refers the original of them to custome but the Doctor speaks onely of Apostolical practice so he sayes But first Socrates says nothing of the Apostolical practice but refers it wholly to the custome of several places and people It seemes to me sayes he as many other things were introduced by a custome in divers places so the Feast of Easter by custome in several people had a peculiar different observation Why because none of the Apostles had made any Law concerning it But sure if the Apostles did change it from a Jewish to a Christian Festival and did themselves observe it as exemplary to the Churches they did thereby at first give as good as a Law and make an institution for them to observe And I am perswaded that upon this ground of Apostolical tradition and observation came in all the Superstition in after ages in making them Holy times and parts of Divine Worship c. and they established them as a Law as Socrates said believing them to be Apostolical 2. The truth seemes to me to lie here The Apostles did often frequent the Assemblies of the Jews in the Temple upon their solemnest Festivals as a greater opportunity of fishing in a wide Sea a multitude of people as at Pentecost Acts 2. and again Acts 20 16 Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost for the same reason which custome of the Festivals continuing till the destruction of Jerusalem the Apostles did condiscend to be at them while they lived amongst them Whereupon the following Church seeing this example of their practice took it as a Rule to observe the Feasts especially the Jewish Christians in Asia being tenacious of their old customes and so kep◠the very same day the Jews did which other Churches after the Jews were grown obstinate finding such a custome of the Feast in hatred of the Jews changed into the Lords day as Augustine observes Epist 119 Can. Nicen. de Fest Pasch by Constantines perswasion But see the tenaciousness of men for Traditions of their Fathers The Doctor cares not what he can to weaken or question the Authority of the Lords day to strengthen and stablish his Easter Feast p. 245. n. 17 It will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any other evidence for the weekly Christian Sabbath or Lords day then the custome and practice Apostolical the New Testament hath no where any giving of Law conerning it But sure it will be easie for the Diatribist to manifest a palpable difference between the Lords day and his Easter out of Scriture the best Record beside what is said out of prime Antiquity For 1. We finde the Name there as a day of Christian Assemblies but not a word of Easter 2. We finde the Apostles practice and observation of it but never of Easter 3. We finde grounds in Scripture for the institution or designation of the day but nothing for Easter but rather the contrary prohibition The grounds of the weekly Christian Sabbath it 's well he will allow the Lords-day so honourable a Title he cannot say so much for his Easter Feast and some of his way would have scornfully called it Your Saint Sabbath The grounds I say are these 1. For a solemn day of rest which is a Sabbath we have the fourth Commandment morall in the judgement of its greatest enemies 2. We have it granted that the day must not be less then one in seven yea one day in seven is granted moral in the fourth Commandment by the Doctor * p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week c. himself 3. Christ in Matt. 5. came to stablish and not destroy this Law amongst the rest 4. We have Christian exercises performed on the day beside prayer and preaching and Lords Supper collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day which presupposes the day * That which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so in his 4. Quaer s 94. before designed by Christ or his Apostles All this together amounts to a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or institution And lastly the uniform observation of this day in all ages in all Churches must needs presuppose it to be a Divine Ordination Not one of all these can he truly prove applyable to his Easter Feast Away then with such unworthy comparisons But we shall meet it again ere long And yet Isaid p. 245. n. 19. and say again The observation of Easter hath better Antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical He answers The Apostolical practice being so evident there can be no doubt then the Analogy holding the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian Festival to another will certainly justifie the observation c. The question is not now of the observation of either but the Antiquity so that this was a meer evasion There are histories and traditions and ancients that speak of Easter in the second Centurie but not one word of Christmas and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it which to me is a good evidence there is none And as for Analogy from one Festival to another it holds as well thus If there can be produced neither Apostolical institution nor observation of Easter as a Christian Festival as is probably evinced above then much less is there any ground for the institution or observation of Christmas as an Holy-day But this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main business When I granted the Antiquity of some Festivals in the third or fourth Century might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman Antichristain See adhering to them The Doctor is overjoy'd n. 1. p. 247. and congratulates the unexpected success of his paper But without any cause for it wrought nothing with me being of that opinion before that Rome was not at that time Antichristian But to discover my meaning and to cool his boasting I believe the first Institutors of Festivals had a good Intention to commemorate the mercies of God bestowed on us in Christ making them onely circumstances of Worship though some Superstitions did soon after creep into the observation of them But after ages declining more and more till Antichrist got into the throne those Festivals I meant comparatively had at first nothing of that corruption which after adhered to and overwhelmed them both in their Institution and also in their observation Neither did I mean that the Festivals as they were lately observed by some in England had nothing of the Roman See as now it is corrupted having charged the observation of them by the Dr. and
commendable and acceptable to God Will-worsh s 16. And again The more acceptable for the voluntaries as being in that parallel to those oblations which are pronounced most acceptable s 19. But I assume the observation and dedication of his Festival together with the services done upon the day are such as God hath not commanded by any particular precept but voluntary and therefore the more acceptable by the Doctors Divinity the conclusion then may not be refused therefore he is superstitious 3. To place the Worship of God in observation of a day which God hath not made holy is superstitious So Chemnitius charges the Papists to do and this was by me laid down as a Species of Superstition Sect. 6. 8. Of Superst Whereunto we have the Doctors consent or silence But if he should deny it it might be proved thus both from the definition of Superstition given by the School-man A vice contrary to Religion in the excess which the Scripture calls addition to the Rule of Worship and also by the scope and sum of the second Commandment God must prescribe his own Worship which the Doctor himself hath glossed as the sense of that Commandment as is cleared above And it may yet be farther confirmed from his words and grants To make new sorts or kindes of Worship is by him condemned as Superstition p. 12. n. 13. But to place the Worship of God in the observation of any day that God hath not made holy is to make a new sort or kind of Worship and consequently is Superstition But the Doctor places the Worship of God in the observation of a day which God confessedly hath not made holy his Festival This I shall prove many wayes 1. His Festival is one of his Free-will-offerings which anciently was a part of Worship 2. He calls it Will-worship which includes voluntary uncommanded Worship so he often explains it and so being uncommanded Worship it is a new sort or kinde of Worship which God hath not commanded 3. He calls the consecration of it a voluntary oblation which signifies Worship An oblation to God in honour to him Sect. 59. Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ Sect. 28. 4. He equalls the observation of it with the Lords-day both in abstaining from labours and making the very rest it self an oblation to God as we shall hear in the next All these make it a part of Worship as high as the Lords-day our Christian Sabbath made holy by Divine institution Therefore again the Doctor in so doing is superstitious 4. To forbid labours on that day when they hinder not the publick Worship if God have not made it holy is superstitious The reason is because God allows men six days for their own works And though it be lawful for the Magistrate or Church to set a part a Time ordinarily for publick Worship yet not to prohibit labours all the day when that publick Worship is ended and to make Rest necessary for the whole day for that is to make it as holy as God himself did and doth the Sabbath But the Doctor forbids labours and requires rest from sports much more sure from labours all the day of his Festival So he says Fest Sect. 59. People may not without offence to God follow their lawful as that signifies ordinary particular or on other days lawful vocations Rest it self is farther capable of the honor of being an oblation to God if in honour to him we thus offer some part of our time unto his service What did God require more on his Sabbath to make it holy In it thou shalt do no manner of work It 's true indeed the Doctor speaks there of the Institution of the Church and the command of God to honour our superiours by submiting to them and seems to limit this strictness of Rest to the Publick Assembly on that day But when he makes Rest an oblation to God and forbids sports cards and dice on that day I can hardly believe the Doctor will allow of lawful labours Following the plough or attending the shop p. 258 n. 3. after the publick Assembly is over Yea it is known that it was held and accordingly censured as more criminous to work on this day then on the Lords-day True it is also that the Publick Worship of God on any day requires for the time cessation from our own works as necessarily inconsistent at the same time but this is equally required on any day when publick or private Worship is commanded as on his Festival day But to make it necessary to Rest from labours and a sin for people to follow their vocations on the Festival day when the Worship is ended is that we charge with the crime of Superstition And this the Doctor does ergo he is superstitious 5. To place more virtue in things or times then either naturally they have in them or by the Institution of God is superstitious So I asserted Sect. 14. So the Doctor asserted of Superst s See account p. 37. n. 17. placing more virtue in them is a fault 45. The placing of more virtue in some things then either naturally or by the Rule of Gods word may be thought to belong to them is a Nimiety and Superstition and the reasons are strong to confirm it The doing of which is either utterly groundless and then it is folly or else it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospel But the Doctor places more virtue in some things and times particularly in his Festival then either naturally or by the Rule of Gods word belongs unto them This I shall prove from himself To expect acceptance and greater reward for uncommanded service or Worship then for commanded duties is to place more virtue in them then either naturally or by the Rule of the word belongs to them for there is no promise made to such uncommanded virtues or Worship as hath been proved above But the Doctor does expresly assert and confidently expect better acceptance and greater reward for uncommanded services or his Will worship pag. 229. n. 14 15. Therefore he places more virtue in his Will-worship such he makes his Festival then doth belong unto it and consequently he proves himself to be superstitious 6. Lastly All uncommanded Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is superstitious It 's made by all our Divines a Species of Superstition and by the School-man to Worship God ut non debet with uncommanded Worship is a kinde of Superstition Yea and by the Doctor himself it must be so concluded thus All false Worship is superstition so here p. 59. n. 3. Superstition is the giving of false Worship to the true God And elsewhere but all uncommanded Worship is false Worship the Doctor I know denies this proposition but without all just reason yet so he says in the same place False worship is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worship for certainly all such is not false But I have sufficiently proved
a Religious Feast Truly he must be very partial whom this will convince All these may be found in a civil Feast A day of rest from ordinary labours An assembly at the Common Halls or places of meeting or places of the vulgars recreations A day of Feasting and gladness c. Onely one thing the Doctor would insinuate which certainly was not at Shuphan portions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as in a Sacrifical Feast Which Sacrifices might be onely at Jerusalem This he did to make it seem a Religious Feast which had it been done would not make the Feast Religious as was said above 2. If it was a Religious Feast others answer Mordecai was a Prophet and so directed by God to make it so which the Doctors Festival wants If that Feast of Purim had not such Divine Authority and yet made a Religious Feast as the Doctor will needs have it I dare still say they went beyond their commission and the Doctor shall justifie my assertion who condemnes all new sorts of Worship as unlawful Concerning the Institution of the Lords-day to be Divine whether by Christ himself or the Apostles enough hath been said in another place and I shall not renew that debate at this time And how odious the frequent comparisons if not preferment of his Festivals with the Lords-day were hath been manifested above The Doctor cannot yet forbear but he must either level the Lords-day to his Festival or advance his Festivals into the same Chair of Estate with the Lords-day for thus he says p. 284. n. 5. He teaches his Catechumene thus from Acts 20.7 That the Lords day was the time so early set apart to the Lords Supper and such holy duties and for collections Pract. cat 2. ed. p. 273. The parallel that I set betwixt the Lords-day and Christmas was onely this that as neither of them was found prescribed or by law commanded in Scripture so the want of such law should be no prejudice to the one more then to the other as long as by some other way it appeared of the one that it was derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church as of the other that it came immediately from the Apostles Now 1. These last words spoil his parallel that the Lords-day came immediately from the Apostles and that as an Institution Divine whereas his Festival came not at all from any Institution of the Apostles but from the usage of the succeeding Church 2. That the Lords-day had a law to found it on the fourth Commandment for one day of seven of Divine appointment as was shewed above and needed onely a Divine designation which was done by Christ or his Apostles but his Festival had no law to found it on but rather a prohibition if made a part of Worship But yet the Doctor goes on If the Apostles usage gave to one a Divine Authority the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that though not Divine and the latter lawfull yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former Here are misadventures enough for so few lines 1. He now secretly waves the Apostles Institution of the Lords-day and brings it to their usage that so it might be equal to his Festival an usage onely 2. Then he would have it supposed for he is excellent at suppositions that will not be granted him that the usage of the Apostles will make any thing Divine which is most unreasonable unless he will again recal and establish as Divine the old Sabbath and other Jewish Ceremonies 3. He hath much ado to forbear to say The usage of the succeeding Church must be Divine also next to that and lawful and obligatory almost as much as that of the Apostles as well though not in so high a degree 4. If the Authority for instituting of the Lords-day and his Festivals be the same as he hath asserted often and both derived from the Apostles then either the usages and Festivals of the succeeding Church are Divine or those of the Apostles are but humane and Ecclesiastical And then the usages of the succeeding Church are not onely lawful and obligatory as well as those of the Apostles but as much and in as high a degree also the Authority being the same But the Doctor is engaged and cannot fairly go back that the Lords-day is of Apostolical Institution and their Institution also Divine and does not that carry in it Divine prescrition or Law He will help himself by a distinction n. 6.284 If by institution be meant giving law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition n. 7. But 't is possible that Institution of the day by the Apostles may signifie that the Apostles practice in assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an Institution or Law with the succeeding Church though the Apostles gave no law for it or no such law appears from them Never I think was it heard that an Apostolical usage was called by the name of an Apostolical Institution Or that the Apostles practice was ground sufficient to make an Institution or Law to the succeeding Church Yes sayes he n. 8. The Aposiles examples are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law and in this sense I consent to the Diatribist that their Institutions carry in them Divine prescription or a Law But I shall not thank him for this consent and shall enter my discent against this last proposition That the Apostles examples c. He should have instanced in some such usages onely that carry in them a Divine Law and have no other grounds of Scripture to import a Divine Institution And if such usages carry in them a Divine Law why hath he not spoken out and told us that his Festivals being derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church are Divine Institutions and not onely Apostolical usages Yet he growes confident to demand this as granted n. 9. That whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us through all ages of the Church from the times of the Apostles themselves may be acknowledged also to carry a Divine impression upon it He means as well as the Lords-day This this is the Helena the Doctor so contends for to stablish by Tradition that which cannot be proved from Scripture But I would say 1. There are not many things so derived to us from the Apostles through all ages except the Lords-day and Infant Baptisme though this latter hath not in Scripture Apostolical practice as the former hath But had not both of them sufficient grounds in Scripture to infer a Divine Institution Infants communicating in the Lords Supper continued six hundred years in the Church sayes Dr. Morton Appeal l. 2. c. 13. s 3. I for my part should not be much perswaded by a meer Apostolical usage through many ages from the Apostles themselves For it s known the Apostles
did frequent the Assemblies on the old Sabbath and it was observed as I remember together with the Lords-day for the four first Centuries yet cast off at last as not Divine And therefore I must profess my dislike of the Doctors proceedings in his plea for Infant Baptisme meerly or chiefly from Tradition of Apostolical practice and in a manner waving * As imperfect wayes of proving it Inf. Bapt. p. 2. n. 1 2. and professing to lay the most weight upon Apostolical practice p. 95 n. 39. that is Tradition of the Church n. 9. the Scriptures whereon all our Divines do found it But this was done to bring in his beloved Easter and Episcopacy so much doated on For the first how well he hath demonstrated it to be derived from the Apostles as a Christian Festival let the Reader judge by what hath been said above For the other of Episcopacy it leads into a new controversie wherein other Learned men are engaged to them I leave it But I cannot pass by another odious comparison betwixt it and the Lords-day Et si non aliqua nocuisset c. He appeals my knowledge Episcopacy hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords-day I do here profess his mistake of my knowledge for I know no such matter and I durst venture my skill to prove It hath if any thing at all not so much much less perfectly and in every respect to be said for it in the Scriptures as the Lords-day But I shall not enter into a new debate But he speaks of a demonstration of Easter to be derived from the Apostles well then he may insult over the Lords day if he can finde a Law in Scripture for it and none for the Lords day n. 7. And that is found by him in 1 Cor. 5.8 Let us keep the Paschal Festivity so he rendered is Fest s 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us keep the Feast here 's an express Law if it be meant of Easter-day as the Doctor would have us believe But against this I brought some Interpretations and Authorities from Ancient and Modern Writers taking it in another sense and I might have brought more but that I would not fill my pages and trouble my Reader when the context clears it from the Doctors gloss If the Doctor did not believe it why did he cite it If he did believe it why doth he so poorly relinguish it For first he slights all those Authorities onely telling us It were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies p. 285. n. 11 Det. of Inf. Bapt. against M. Tombs p. 17. n. 26. Yet elsewhere says The word is by circumstances applied to the Feast of Easter p. 244. n. 12. as some ground in Scripture for the observation Estius with Beza better hits the sense Sicuâ— Judaei fermento abstinebant quamdiu Pascha celibrabant it a vos Christiana perpetuum Pascha agentes semper oporter abstinere à fermento veteris ac pâ—avae conversationis Itaque Epulemur c. In locum But I could bring him one Testimony that he may not well slight who thus glosses that text Paul himself saying that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us the plain meaning of it being this that the Jewish Passover being abolished we have now the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ substituted in the stead of it Not the Jewish Paschal Feast being abolished Easter Feast is substituted instead of it let us therefore keep the Feast of the Lords Supper which was the very gloss of Aquinas by me produced Secondly as he slights them so he shakes off me with a lofty scorn I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such learned men As if no body of his Adversaries at least not my poor self did converse with the Fathers and other Learned men but himself who yet takes upon him Magisterially and Dictator like to vent his own Interpretations of Scripture quite against the Judgement of many Ancient and most Modern learned Protestants And whether it advantage me or no sure it will prejudice him not a little to bring a text to prove a Law for Easter which his own conscience tells him is not the sense of it by that means to advance it above the Lords-day when he confesses all that he was to prove there was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them As for me whether I have brought from Scripture some other places which are more Apodictical evidences of Apostolical Institution which imports a Law for the Lords day it is left to the Indifferent Reader to judge As for Aerius his being condemned by Epiphanius for holding Festivals unlawful p. 286. n. 1. as also he did Episcopacy if he meant onely as some think he did that it was unlawful to make Festivals parts of Worwip or Holy-days equal with the Lords-day as he was unjustly branded for an Heretick for this opinion so he hath in this as also in the matter of Episcopacy as the Doctor knowes many Orthodox learned Divines of his opinion who were never called Hereticks for so doing I shall give him the thoughts and desires of some of them First Bucer whom the Doctor delights to cite sometimes in Matth. 12. Ferias alias praetur diem Dominicum optarim abrogatus universas c. I could wish that every Holy-day beside the Lords-day were abolished The zeal which brought them in was without all warrant of the word and meerly followed corrupt reason viz. N. B. to drive out the Holy-days of the Pagans c. Those Holy-days have been so tainted with Superstitions that I wonder that any Christian should not tremble at their very names The next is Oecolampadius in Isa 1.4 I never heard wise man yet who did not judge that a great part at least of other Feasts besides the Lords day should be abolished The last shall be the learned Zanchie who though he speaks favourably sometimes of some Festivals yet thus delivers his judgement It is most agreeable to the first Institution and Apostolical writings that one day onely in the week be kept holy in 4. Precept n. 3. Let the Doctor now go on and call these learned men Hereticks in paraphrase as he plainly does it will be little for his credit I shall in the next place take the Doctor at his word p. 286. n. 4. He professes If I shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe Feasts are superstitious he will think himself obliged to do more then deny the accusation That is I suppose he will acknowledge it and retract his errour Now I accept the condition and shall appeal to the Doctors own conscience whether I have not brought fairer evidences of solid arguments and reasons and that from his own concessions that he is superstitious in observing his Festivals then he