whole Church in a manner runs madding into these very great abuses But said I this is pretty untempered morter and the sowing pillows under profane mens elbows For 1. For the eating part I meant the Riotous part he knows the Apostle did abolish the Love Feasts themselves not stay to reform the great and general abuses of them 2. For the sporting part such as was much unbeseeming the Festivity of such a Saviour the Doctor will not yeild that that shall be abolished save in case onely of great and general abuses Nay 3. not for great and general abuses Till they be so great as to out-ballance the good uses and so general that the whole Church runs madding into them 4. Those abuses I said have been long so great that they have out-ballanced the good uses and so general that the whole nation hath run mad into them and yet the eating and sporting part the riot revellings was never attempted to be reformed for those too common unreformable abuses the like whereof were found in and caused the abolition of those Love-feasts as he said p. 270. n. 18. Yet see again his good will and and respect to the Lords-day thus he says I as heartily wish a devout p. 272. n. 24 conscientious profitable observation of the Lords-day as of any other Festivity c. How greatly is God and his Day beholden to his liberality He says not I could wish the Festival days were as devoutly c. observed as the Lords-day that had prefer'd it a little as the standard of observation of Holy-days But his way depresses it below his Festivals and makes them as he did Easter above p. 243. the standard of devotion to the Lords-day And it 's very like his practice in observation of the Days was answerable for he told us of Christmas day That it was observed with much more at least as strictly as any Lords-day in the year Equal strictness was too much but more is more unequal and unjust This he would evade by interpreting the words by those which follow In frequenting the services of the Church in use of the Liturgy Sermon Sacraments c. without prejudice to the Lords-day on which the Lords Supper was not constantly celebrated But this confesses the fact that besides all that pompous shew in Cathedrals of Vestments and Musick c. the * The Sacrament of the Lords Supper I make an ingredient in the strictness of the Celebration of of the Festivity numb 27. pag. 172. Lords Supper which he knows was anciently celebrated every Lords-day and somewhere oftner should be enjoyned strictly to be celebrated on Christmas day and was by some so observed and not on the Lords-day This imported some greater Holiness and Honour to that day above the Lords-day and we then might have wished as heartily as the Doctor does now that the Lords day might have been kept as devoutly c. as the Festival day and fit it was it should have had some preheminence as being of Divine Institution which his Festival had not The Apostolical Institution of the Lords-day was I thought granted by the Doctor Fest Sect. 31. and Apostolical Institutions to be Divine was also asserted Quer. 1. s 22. p. 273. n. 30. Yet how willingly would he and how subtlely does he retract what he had granted to make either the Lords-day equally Ecclesiastical with his Festival or his Festival equally Apostolical with the Lords-day For I having charged him to assert Sect. 57. The Lords-day to be by the same authority appointed viz. of the Church See how he shuffles to avoid it first I did grant it though I know not in what words of Scripture that Institution of the Lords day is set down Was he not then too rash to acknowledge what he could not by Scripture some way make out He pleads Infant Baptism to be the institution of Christ of Apostolical Practice though he cannot tell where to find either of them in Scripture He might have gratified the Lords-day with the same allowance especially having the mention of the Lords-day there and observation of it by the Apostles which presupposes an Institution which the other wants 2. He takes off the objection from s 57. thus p. 273. n. 30. Those words there used Though the Lords-day be by the same authority appointed do not belong to the stating of the question and no affirmation that the Lords-day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas-day c. Let the Reader turn to the place and judge He had said The same Church or any other authority equal to that obliges c. Then follows And though the Lords day be by the same Authority appointed that must needs be the Church which obliges c. 3. But he goes on and says He is confessed in my Margent to have said the Apostles instituted the Lords day and he speaks as plainly Sect. 57. of Christmas day that it hath it's Institution and usage from the universal Church But I ask if he equivocate not with us does not this put a plain difference between the Institution of the Lords-day and Christmas-day the one Apostolical the other Ecclesiastical or else he must make them both of the same Authority and was not that his designe without any calumny Here yet more 4. Either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be taken so as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles Instituted the Lords-day and either they personally or their successours used and delivered down the other Festivals of Easter c. But this is a miserable prevarication For 1. What means he by the Church of the * See p. 39. n. 4. Universal Church including the Apostles chief pastors thereof or the succeeding Churches with their Governors Apostles which instituted the Lords-day either the Apostles themselves as it 's usual with some to call the Rulers the Bishops onely the Church and then it is of Divine Institution and so differs sufficiently from Institutions of the succeeding Church or Rulers Or the Church without or with the Apostles but he cannot shew any such power in the Church to institute Ceremonies as parts of Worship without them or with them neither then could it be called an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical rather if the Apostles were not considered as Apostles but as Governors of the Church and so not of Divine Institution 2. Yet how doubtfully he speakes of his Christmas Either they personally or their Successours used and delivered down the other Festivals If not they personally but their successours then behold a different authority again they personally instituted the Lords-day but not his Christmas then they are not both by the same authority appointed 3 Yet more warily They or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals He should have
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be here taken in an ill sense by Festus It seemes to me and many others to be taken in an ill sense if the Doctor will needs think otherwise let him enjoy his own opinion The very Heathens and such was Festus branded Religion which they did not like by the Name of Superstition surely that was in opposition to Religion their own at least which they thought to be the truest 2. p. 63. n. 5 The next is of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be taken two wayes either his or theirs Pauls onely or the Jews also The Doctor is for the former and renders the words his Superstition and something being said to it in this Section he takes no notice of it unless it be to say I give no reason of what I say I shall therefore produce my reason there and adde another strength to it I said from a parallel Scripture Acts 23.29 Paul was accused of questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their Law not of Pauls own Religion To which I now adde a second Acts 18 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a question of your Law said Gallio one of Festus his rank Let 's see if his reason be better then these two Scriptures joyn'd with that c. 25 19. Thus he gives it The Jewes accusation against Paul is plainly mentioned in this place Well so it is p. 63. n. 6. in the other two places what then How then could their own Superstition be the matter of their charge against him I could blush or pitty such argumentation Apply it to the other Texts afore Acts 18.15 If it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as the Doctor laboured to prove numb 5. An accusation or question of your Law Ask now how could their own Law See Acts 21.28 Teaches against the people and against the Law be the matter of their charge against him I forbear the other place And I adde if it were worth the while the context carries it to my sense Those words were spoken to Agrippa concerning Pauls case Against whom when the Accusers stood up they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed but had certain questions against him of their own Superstition their own Law the words afore immediately being spoken of them not of him And if he should say but one part of the accusation was about one Jesus which was dead c. and so of Pauls Religion the answer will be that this is a distinct accusation from the former and so will conclude it was of theirs as well as his The former may include his but his will not imply theirs But too much of this n. 7. The 3. is Whether Festus put Jesus under the notion of a Daemon or dead Heros My exception to it was That Paul affirmed him to be alive not in part as those departed Daemons were supposed but in the whole man as raised from the dead The Doctor makes a little retreat as if he would yield to my reason I shall not because I need not make it a matter of controversie with any But it was but to come on again with more force Yet I had this consideration to incline me to it the immediate subjoyning of One Jesus whom Paul contended to live to be Superstes c. But in citing these words he should have looked to the other words 1. One Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was or had been dead so the word signifies sayes he numb 8. Whom Paul affirmed to be alive or live again as the words together do import As for his other additions they are not to the purpose but conjectures of his own and I list not to follow him But if he yield in the least to have mistaken he will recriminate and throw dirt in his Adversaries face p. 64 n. 8. That in this one proof I have strained more then he in his Criticisme Wherein will that appear 1. When I read the text they had many questions when the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some But sure that 's no strain For verse 7. I found they laid many complaints against Paul and in the text there were three at least two concerning their own Superstition the word is plural and another concerning one Jesus c. Et tria sunt omnia we may say many of three 2. That I read both and also when no such thing in the Greek or English But I pray if those be distinct questions of their Superstition and of one Jesus as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning twice repeated He leaves out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 8. Is this fair does fairly suggest may not an Interpreter so was I there say questions both concerning their own Superstition and also concerning one Jesus c. 3. The third is long and I know not well how to contract it I said Paul was accused of Sedition seducement profanation of the Temple c. he returns Paul had cleared himself from those and so in Festus Judgement Paul was not guilty of any thing but onely of his own Religion and one Jesus by way of explication and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being exegetical c. But 1. what though Paul had answered some of those charges being innocent in all yet might not Festus tell Agrippa they had many questions against him as verse 7. it is said 2. That Paul was not charged with any thing but his own Superstition and one Jesus is a meer begging the question 3. So is the next that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And is here exegetical which is proved false by the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning noted before which would have been but once had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been exegetical And which is worse the accusation had not been in the plural not some questions but a question concerning one Jesus I wish the Doctor did not here strain his wits against the light having said at first he would not make it a controversie with any At last he comes of with a Charientismus If all were granted p. 65. n. 10. that I desire that the Superstition spoken of was not Saint Pauls but the Jewes then be will say it shall signisie the Jewes Religion simply without any Character of ill or good laid upon it And why did he not save all this long vitiligation by saying so much at first and himself and me all this trouble Yet I hope it may do good one way or other and then no cause to repent Section 21. What Epicurus doctrine was or what Heathens thought of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not much solicitous c. THat the Doctors intention was in his large discourse out of Heathens concerning the word p. 66. n. 1. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To lead us away in a mist from the true and proper sense of the word amongst Christans may probably be
particular Church as we should place only in those of Divine institution by Christ and his Apostles And so commonly men do account the Church as Holy as the Temple was and Festivals as Holy as the Lords day and are not by the Doctor taught their due proportions Many things were there propounded to his consideration Sect. 39. which we cannot but take ill to be slighted as not concerning him to take notice of first whether any but God can make a thing properly Holy 2. What proper Holiness is 3. The diffâ—…ence of Holiness given by the different Auâ—… c. and the rest there propounded The Doctor waving all these for what reason he best knowes catches at an advantage from some words of mine I said In times or places separated by God or men there is this difference besides others that those sanctified by God require holy duties to fill them up but those by men are to wait upon holy duties This he sayes without consideration is not so Prayer and Fasting c. were not appointed for time or places sake c. He clearly mistakes me for I meant thus The Sabbath and the Temple being made Holy by God required Holy Services to fill them up But times and places set apart by men have respect to the Worship of God and are appointed for the Worships sake not the Worship for the time and places sake That 's it that I said a little afore men cannot make any thing properly Holy but onely improperly with respect to Holy things or Duties And that is to make any time or place when and where those duties are performed as Holy as any other time or place that is the one no more Holy then another But this Holiness I doubt will not serve the Doctors turn yet it must if he be constant to his principles For he professes not to make his time and place Festivals and Churches parts of Worship but circumstances onely of Worship which any Day or place is as well as his separated Dayes and places and so one as Holy as another p. 87. n. 13. But to this he hath to say The time and place instituted by God himself is as truly a circumstance of Worship as when instituted by men and duty is equally the Substance c This is another of his mistakes not that time and place instituted by God are not as truly Circumstances as those by men but that they are more even parts of Worship so was the Sabbath and Temple but so are not his Holy-dayes and our Churches Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things And now he may take home his * The Doctor uses the word till for fill the Printers fault to give me a flout and that twice Absurdity put upon me to himself I said I had thought Apostolical and Divine had been both one with the Doctor and so they are sometimes but I perceive he makes them differ c. He answers It is soon dispatcht p. 88. n. 14. by saying I do not think the Apostles to be God Too soon dispatcht indeed Did ever any man charge him to think so when he made Apostolical institutions to be Divine and infallible Is not this a miserable subterfuge when he knowes well enough how to distinguish between Immediately Divine so were Christs own Institutions and mediately The Scripture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine inspiration or God inspired yet writ by holy men 2 Pet. 1.21 by commission from him and Inspiration from the Holy Ghost so were the Apostles Divine Why then did he speak thus Sure it was either to bring Apostolical down to Ecclesiastical or to advance the latter to the Authority of the former and to make them equal But is it not uncharitable for me thus to judge No not at all knowing him so well as I do For he sayes expresly hereafter His Festival and the Lords day are founded both on the same Authority Fest 5.57 Then either Ecclesiastical is Divine for so is Apostolical or Apostolical is but Humane for so is Ecclesiastical unless the Doctor will joyn with Papists and make the Churches Sanctions to be Divine as was said afore But more of this hereafter Yet before we part with this Section one thing the Doctor is desired in his next to satisfie how he will avoid that in the close By this distinction aforegoing of his the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition in placing Holiness in things times places they may borrow the Doctors answer They may say they account them Holy but either by the authority of the general or particular Church of Rome and that is no Superstition sayes he say they Something would be said to this Sect. 40 41 42. But he goes on If my voluntary oblation I perform as a voluntary oblation c. THese three Sections the Doctor passes over with an easie touch because it touches too near upon his Will-worship and therefore tells me I beg the question p. 28. n. 15. to take it for granted that his voluntary oblation is an eminent species of Superstition against which punishment is denounced in the second Commandment when his whole Tract of Will-worship undertakes to demonstrate the contrary c. I could answer for my self that at my first draught I placed his and my own Tract of Will-worship before that of Superstition as he did and so took it for granted I had proved his Will-worship to be a Species of Superstition But I say the place is proper enough here having in my discourse of Superstition held out Will-worship to be a species of Superstition by the Judgement of of the best Divines though much more remaines to be said of it And I adde further that the Doctor hath yielded Vncommanded Worship to be unlawfull and superstitious but his voluntary oblation Worship he meanes is Uncommanded Worship ergo let him take heed of the punishment threatned to such Worship Yet I shall say I am not much troubled that he reserves this to the next Exercitation if I were sure he would look back to these three Sections and answer them there but this I fear is but an avoidance of what he is not willing to answer We shall observe his performance Sect. 43. And now the Doctor may be pleased to review and if he will recall his bitter false uncharitable conclusion c. HOw the Doctor hath vindicated his Doctrine against me the indifferent Reader p. 89. n. 4. must now be Judge not we our selves It onely remaines to see how he will vindicate his charity in his bitter conclusion which he goes about first by his Rhetorick craving to premise that it was but a severe Satyre against a vice and not a person c. I shall with him desire the Iudifferent Reader to review those two last Sections and then give Judgment whether he doth not even point at the persons whom he meanes not in particular naming the men but in a plain
Scripture or right reason is he imperfect that falls short of five being a Jew or six being a Christian and yet he that arrives at five or six yea the lowest fraction of that degree said to be perfect seeing he also falls short of the eighth which is supposed the highest degree of perfection 4. Divinty would rather say supposing Zeal and Piety to require eight degrees he is onely perfectly zealous and perfectly pious who arrives at the eighth degree and all these that fall short more or less of that degree to be more or less not perfect for that they are not but imperfect and so no degrees of perfection what is less then it ought to be is in vitio so far faulty and sinful as we shall hear anon As fractions therefore in Arithmetick are imperfect numbers so those degrees of Zeal and Piety in Divinity are imperfect virtues there may be degrees of virtues Zeal Piety c. but no degrees of perfection But enough and too much of this fine speculation The next about degrees of mercy is bottom'd upon the same airy speculation 1. p. 205. n. 12 That there is any highest degree of mercy determin'd by the Law to which a man is bound which being done a man may exceed that The Law is not determinative but according to circumstances requires more or less and then bindes and so it is not above command 2. That to give above a mans ability and the necessity of the poor is no breach of charity in the excess when as the Law limits charity to others by that to our selves 3. That the Macedonians did give above their abilitie which the text says not as was noted above I did not understand that precept n. 13. Be merciful as your heavenly Father c. in regard of equality but quality and in regard of proportioning our mercy according to the circumstances which command our mercy as Deut. 15 8. Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth That 's one act of charity another is giving ver 10. Thou shalt surely give him c. The words are more full in the Original Opening thou shalt open thy hand and lending thou shalt lend him how much enough for his want that which is wanting to him giving thou shalt give unto him That is freely fully according to thy ability and his necessity But what if the Doctor do this and then will be yet more merciful is that excess and a fault I had said Circumstances considered I am bound to supply his need and to give less were neither prudent nor pious what ever it were to give more This last the Doctor takes hold on He dare not pronunce it an offence against either of those virtues to go beyond this but breaks off abruptly what ever it were to give more I did not then affirm it to be an offence to give more because it was in question but if he had read on the next Section I brought here his own confession That it 's possible to offend against prudence in too prodigal a giving and in too parsimonious against Piety That says as much as I intended that there may be an offence in the excess in giving too much as in too little a defect to which he says nothing but labours to evade it as we shall see presently But in his way a man can hardly offend either in the defect or excess Not in the defect if he give but a little yet charity or mercy having a latitude and degrees he that arrives at the lowest degree or fraction of a degree is not onely merciful but perfect in mercy as well as he that goes to an higher degree Not in the excess for he had newly said n. 12. Supposing any sum that in all those circumstances two men are bound to give yet certainly one may lawfully exceed that sum and give more even beyond his ability and this not be sinful but more acceptable c. Why then should the Doctor blame if he do blame some devout Papists who give away all and go themselves a begging as thinking it a very meritorious work more acceptable more rewardable yet this the Doctor addes As I am bound to supply his present wants so I may make provision also against his future necessities c. He sayes too little in the last he may yea must make provision against his future necessities for he wants for the future as well as at present and an able man is bound to provide for that The Samaritane gave him a good pattern for this who did not onely power in wine and oyl for his present need but left money and charge to the hoast to take care of him with promise to repay it Go thou and do likewise is our Saviours inference and command and then not above a command Sect. 42. And here he confesses it's possible to offend c. THat vertue and so charity consists in a middle point between two extremes he cannot deny but still flies to his old refuge not in an indivisible point there is a latitude of degrees c. To which enough hath been said afore All he excepts to is That righteousness of God p. 206. n. 14 doth not use to punish those facts which have no Law observable by man to forbid them c. I did not say they had no Law observable by man but thus If it swerve from that point to either extreme it is more or less a fault though not observed perhaps not observable by men My meaning was that a man might easily swerve from the middle point the strait line wherein vertue consists and very hardly observe the declinations which yet is punishable c. especially when some vices have the very similitude of vertues The Doctor seemes to think that in natural men the Law being blotted and blurred in their hearts the Lord may not in justice punish them for what they cannot now read just like his other Divinity I said moreover Prudence it self being a vertue in our created nature then certainly commanded to do what was fittest and so it doth still that what is short of the Rule by our imprudence is a fault c. To which just nothing But enough to the next I said two things in answer to the objection propounded by him p. 207. n. 15. That it seemed to touch upon 1. The mercenary 2. The meritorious way of Romanists c. To the latter he says little yet sure the Romanists do hold merit of good works though required by the Law or Gospel how much more of works and perfections of vertues above the Law and Gospel wherein how the Doctor agrees with them let him consider I can see no difference but that the Doctor denies the word merit which they openly profess For the other I say it is too mercenary to look onely or first at the reward rather then at vertue and to
And the mischief is that they that think they can do things not commanded do usually the rather neglect the care of securing of duties but hope to compensate by doing things not commanded You make void the Commandment of God by your own Tradition and say it is corban c. But we have here the Doctors method and path-way to Heaven it is somewhat long but it could not well be shorter and the end will make amends for all the greater reward Thus it lies He that shall have observed this method uprightly eschewed evil in a strict mortifying of lusts c. in abstaining from sin and doing * Doing all that is commanded Mark that all that is commanded confirmed by authority of a Poet virtus est vitium fugere c. and whensoever he hath failed secured his retrait by an early humiliation confession begging of pardon in Christ and sincere reformation and then laboured industriously to superstruct doing of good works of the more eminent I mean uncommanded degrees of virtues I shall not doubt to encourage him to think confidently and expect from our great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more and greater acceptance I shall adde reward also then the same person could in reason expect for doing onely what is commanded I shall adde what he addes in the next p. 229. n. 15 and consider them together There is no reason to make question but that of two men which have been equal in obediences one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection the more perfect shall have the richest reward c. To all this I shall speak first in general and then to some particulars In general thus by considering how far an hypocrite may travel in this way to glory 1. He may abstain from some yea many sins wherewith some sincere Christian may be overtaken and the Doctor will not say his pious Christian can or doth abstain from all sins 2. He may do all that is commanded for the letter of the Law as Paul himself before his conversion says he was blameless and the Doctor does not say or does not mean though he say all his pious man may do universally all that is commanded 3. When he hath failed if at least he may fail he may in the Doctors language secure his retrait by an early humiliation and confession Pray ye to the Lord for me as Ahab and Juda did 4. He may beg pardon of God and that in Christ as its like Simon Magus did who desired others also to pray for him 5. He may make an outward Reformation of his failings in many things as Herod did and the Doctor will not say but his Pious Christian may fail still by infirmity in some things repented of 6. After all this he may use Austerities Fasting Watchings and other Penances for the mortifying of his lusts at least in pretence as Papists do and the Pharisees did 7. And then he may proceed to superstruct doing of good works of the more eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue for I observe none such named by the Doctor but an hypocrite may do them as give alms liberally as the Pharisees did above what the Law required If I give all my goods to the poor and have not charity supposes the ease possible I am nothing He may be frequent in Praying five or six times a day in Fastings twice or thrice a week and in other such Austerities as afore He may make himself an Eunuch undertake to profess a single life under pretence to please God better Nay he may offer himself to voluntary Martyrdome which two last are the Doctors highest perfections of all If I give my body to be burned for Religion for Christ and have not Charity Supposes that case also possible for an hypocrite to attain to May now the Dr. encourage this man to think and expect confidently more and greater acceptance and reward then another that onely hath done what is commanded And that with some failings Perhaps he will say he does not all these things uprightly or sincerely and so loses all Be it so yet this was more then the Doctors eye could discover for he cannot see his heart therefore he might encourage him still confidently to expect if not more yet some acceptance and reward if not for abstaining from so many sins and doing so many things commanded because he plaid but the hypocrite in all yet for his eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue a just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not let such high perfections go altogether unrewarded But I shall come to some particulars And first with respect to what I said last it must be supposed in this distribution of rewards that uncommanded eminent degrees of virtue Else they are but as Cyphers in Arithmetick which of themselves signifie nothing but make a figure more by conjunction and highest perfection may of themselves expect some reward or acceptance from God by whomsoever they are done though he have not done all that is commanded For if they give more acceptance and reward in conjuction with commanded virtues they must give some positive reward single and alone or joyned with lower degrees of virtue and then an hypocrite may expect some acceptance and reward from God for such eminent virtues who yet is most abominable to him 2 Though obedience to commands may expect acceptance with God and reward and glory in Heaven yet uncommanded eminent perfection carries away the prize or crown of glory But I desire to know who gave this authority to these men to distribute rewards less to obedience commanded and more to uncommanded virtues 3. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth distributes his rewards and prizes by an act of justice to the best deserving not of mercy and favour But I hope the Doctor will not say so of God though Papists are bold enough to say so 4. If this reward be not an act of justice upon merit then it must be by way of promise which is of grace or mercy For works commanded are rewarded of meer mercy Psal 62. last if uncommanded works may not plead merit none can yet Papists that make commanded works meritorious do also make uncommanded works more meritorious If then the Doctors eminent uncommanded virtues may expect a greater reward then works commanded the works of mens devising are exalted above the works of Gods commanding By what Rule not of merit or justice that the Doctor disclaims not of mercy for then they must have some promise the ground of that expectation but promise he can shew none or let us see the Patent where uncommanded virtues are promised I say not a greater but any reward at all All the promises in Scripture are made to the obedient and obedience imports a command as all threatnings are made to the disobedient which implies a prohibition And for ought I see there may be as well some eminent or lesser wickednss not under prohibition against which there is no threatning as
any eminent virtues not under some command for which there is no promise 5. The Doctor puts us a case suppose two men equal in obediences one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection this shall have the richer reward Just the Popish dream of Aurea and Aureola But let me put him a case Suppose two men unequal in obediences no doubt but such there are and he that hath the least of obedience whether by frailty or otherwise hath exceeded the other in acts of uncommanded virtues which now shall have the greater acceptance and reward If the latter then it will follow that he that hath most sins such is he that hath the least of obediences shall have more glory for uncommanded virtues then he that hath lesser and fewer sins such is he that hath more obediences for want of uncommanded virtues Nay it will follow that he that hath less and fewer obediences but more uncommanded virtues shall have both less and more glory then the other less because the other having more obediences should in reason the Doctors own phrase expect a greater reward then he that hath less and yet more because he hath more uncommanded virtues which is a Qâ—odlibet fitter for the Romish Schools to determine If this be not the intruding into those things which he hath not seen vainly puft up by his fleshly mind Col. 2.18 I leave it to consideration Yet the Doctor sayes p. 229. n. 15 Its most evident the latter shall have the richer reward whether by considering the degrees of glory in heaven or the rule by which God distributes them still under the Gospel to every man according to his work As for the degrees of glory of Saints in Heaven he knows it s a disputable probleme how ever very uncertain how they shall be proportioned being a work of pure grace and favour which may give as much to him that comes in to work at the last houre as to him that came in at the first and do him no wrong And as for the Rule of distribution of rewards according to mens works that may have a double sense either according to the quality or kinde of mens works good to the good and evil to the evil as oft it is applied Rom. 2.6 Gal. 6.7 8. Or according to the quantity more reward for greater good and lesser for lesser and so greater torments to greater and more sins contra and so it is sometimes used And for greater punishments for greater sins its clear by Scripture which speaks of greater damnation and easier for Tyre and Sidon c. the reason is because that 's an act of justice but whether more or greater good works shall have greater reward may reasonably be scrupled because that 's a work of pure mercy which may do what it will with its own However God will reward men according to their works of obedience to his commands according to his promise but not according to mens own devised good works of higher perfection and uncommanded unless they can shew us such a promise In the next place my Charity is slighted and rejected with some scorn that I said n. 16. Ours are not yet come so far as to think they can merit by such works as Papists do and the Dr. concludes from my confession We are not Papists yet nor yet do I maintain works of Supererogation c. It was both my Charity and Modesty thus to speak of some for he knows some of ours who were as zealous as himself for Will-worship are turned absolute Papists even in this point of merit by commanded and uncommanded works Let him that yet standeth take heed lest he fall And the rather because he stands upon slippery ground which may easily cast him into the same precipice I did not directly charge the Doctor with the opinion or heresie of works of Supererogation but sure he is very near it and seeing that I spake in Charity but he takes it by the wrong handle to prevent his falling into the pit I shall onely shew him how near he is to it if he will have the patience to hear me As in other points he is gone far towards Rome as very learned men think so in this particular now before us They agree in these things 1. In the Principle of Supererogation which is That a man may do uncommanded works or that there are uncommanded virtues of eminent perfection above commanded virtues So they so he asserts 2. They agree also in the success of such uncommanded perfections that they are more commendable more acceptable to and more rewardable by God this he and they do confidently affirm alike 3. In the ground of them in regard of satisfaction to God by them that is merit for so Papists do expresly make them meritorious of more glory for themselves and for pardon and glory for others that need them But this the Doctor disclaimes and abhors p. 224. n. 3. It is an infinite mercy that they are rewardable the most excellent of them True in words he denies all meriting of glory by his most eminent perfections but see the consequences of his doctrine for thus I would argue If uncommanded works be more rewardable it must be either by way of merit or of grace I know no third way Rom. 4.4 Of grace or of debt But his uncommanded works are not more rewardable by way of grace for then they have some promise for that greater reward in Scripture but they are all made to obediences upon commands What remains then but by way of debt or merit and then indeed he may not onely confidently expect a greater reward but peremptorily challenge it * The Doctrine of Supererogation is founded in their opinion that a man may by uncommanded performances make satisfaction for his own and other men sins which I no way believe or acknowledge p. 224. n. 1. by way of justice as Papists do It may be said wherein then does the Doctor differ from them In point of satisfaction onely either for their own or others sins But Papists make their works of Supererogation or uncommanded virtues to merit greater glory for themselves if not for others also And herein in the first at least they both agree Let us review a little the 53. Sect. of Will-worship and we shall see what he asserts to free his doctrine from Supererogation 1. It supposeth no perfect obedience Nor do Papist do so but does not the Doctor so both in his particular acts of some virtues which he makes to be sinless and also in universal obedience to the Law to be possible at least for Christs yoke is not made up of impossible precepts Nor do Papists hold that all men can or do keep the Law but onely some eminent Saints and consequently they do or should hold if they speak reason that none but such can Supererogate But if such as have sinned and do sin may Supererogate the Doctors denial of perfect obedience
does not make it impossible for himself also to Supererogate which is as he sayes to lay out more then is commanded that is to do something not commanded But again if a man may Supererogate being a sinner by doing something not commanded how easie a consequence is this to carnal reason I can do more then is commanded ergo I may merit more glory for my self if not satisfie for others which brings me to the next 2. If supposing every man to have sinned it pretendeth not to the least degree of satisfaction to God for any the least sin of our own 3. Much less for others sins So they differ onely in point of satisfaction for sins which notwithstanding hinders not but there may be Supererogation in point of doing more then is commanded whence Supererogation hath its denomination and also in purchasing if I may not say * Virgo-majoris est meriti said Hierom. cited above p. 95. meriting which is true enough if such works have no promise of greater reward meritting I say glory more glory for our selves if not for others and so the Doctor falls into their doctrine of merit of glory though he escape the gulf of satisfaction for sins and which is worse and most blasphemous against the precious and infinite merits of Christ is hard to determine By all which it may appear my Charity was useful enough to fetch out a brother fallen or stay him falling into the pit And yet see how contemptibly the Doctor throws it away p. 229. n. 16 I onely adde that 't is no way useful for him to lose his pains and his charity by confuting those of whom he onely divineth that they may hereafter fall into false doctrine which yet I hope I shall not do having no temptation from all this Diatribists exercitation and arguments therein contained to flie to any other Sect of Religion to furnish my self with answers for him Truly I am sorry my charity and my pains should be lost upon him I finde my pains is not lost to others and for my charity let him now consider what need he had of it if not it shall I doubt not return into mine own bosome And were I of his opinion I should finde a temptation upon me to those ill consequences of his doctrine and must either flie some whither for answers to them or flie to Rome to be of their opinions in point of Supererogation For what wise man might not be tempted to thinke When the Scripture calls to the most excellent way and prudence as he said suggests the readiest way to be most glorious in Heaven is to do that which is best and the Doctor or Papists shall teach this doctrine See n. 17. That to do things not commanded is more commendable acceptable rewardable with God then to do things commanded by God Who will not feel himself tempted to leave or somewhat neglect the common rode of obediences to commands and run into this new-found easier way that will lead more speedily to higher glory This hath mislead thousands of Papists and they no Babies as it did the Pharisees of old and if I be not deceived many of our own superstitious Formalists for such there were though the Doctor scorns the words into many Will-worships who it 's known too well to be hid did neglect the commands of God enough but were zelots in the Doctors uncommanded Worship and Ceremonies and ambitious some of them of his uncommanded eminent perfection and virtues c. And for a close of this I did not before but now almost durst take upon me to Divine that in his next answers to what is now said the Doctor must either flie to some other Sect of Religion that of the Romanist for answers or else must return to the way of truth which he hath deserted and I defend which God grant Hear what he says more p. 230. n. 18 As those which freely do those things which others account unlawful ought not to despise those which do them not so on the other side those which do them not ought in no wise to judge or condemne those that do them Rom. 14. But first this rule of the Apostle must be understood of things meerly indifferent meats c. not of things unlawfull and forbidden as all uncommanded Worship is In this case they that do it not ought in all wise to judge and condemn them that do it and not to suffer sin upon their brother Levit. 19.17 2. It 's well known that they which did too freely do those things which others accounted and proved unlawfull did not onely despise but judged condemned and punished those which did them not And so were the first and worst transgressours of their own rule bespeaking the favour not to be despised by others that themselves might have the liberty to judge others c. Had they left them as indifferent and free to do or not to do them there would have been as no judging of them that do them not so no despising but rather pittying of them which do them And now I have done with this Diatribe but that charity which begins at home though it after go abroad calls upon me to rectifie two misprisions and injuries put upon me 1. That I censured our Bishops by the Character of Over-looking as guilty of insolence and contempt towards others which like the Karaeans kept close to the rule of the word for their Worship I can sincerely profess that to my best remembrance the Bishops in that notion were not in my thoughts some of which I ever reverenced as learned and pious men But if any of them were superstitious Formalists as some were known to be in that notion I might intend them whose insolence and contempt of their differing brethren was too often felt in making their own constitutions and ceremonies snares to tender honest consciences c. Yet if the Doctor will needs know whom I meant I shall freely tell him they were those who ambitious perhaps of that Episcopal dignity did comply to every new introduced superstitious ceremony with scorn enough overlooking them who could not do so some of them being loose and profane in morall conversation That 's the first There is another great mistake and very false yet like a threed runs through all his former discourse That I presume all use of uncommanded Ceremonies to be Superstition first and then Formality Which I so professedly disclaimed often and have his confession sometimes to the contrary that I understood the question onely of uncommanded Worship not of Circumstances not of Ceremonies unless they be made parts of Worship or offend against some other Scripture Rules Which whether his Christmas Festival as it was by most observed be guilty of comes next to be considered Exercitation 3. Of Christmas and other Festivals HAving so largely vindicated the two former Diatribees in Thesi I shall not need to be long in Hypothesi The judicious Reader ere this