OF SVPERSTITION.

Section 1.

IN a just and Methodicall order of Translation, the Discourse of Superstition should pre­cede that of Will-worship; that being more generall, this last a Special under it. Which that we may discover, we shall (before we de­bate it with the Doctor) enquire, and (as well as we can) resolve, what Superstition is; And this cannot so well be found, by searching into the Monuments of Heathen Authors, Latine or Greeke, (which is the Doctors way) from the Names and senses by them given; (they being apt to misleade themselves and us, in this search,) as by the judgement of Divines, the matter belonging to Religion, the chiefe and last of all Arts: They that never knew what true Religion meant, are all judges of Superstition, which is the worke and worker thereof, in the excessive part.

§. 2. Superstition, in the generall notion of it, is not unfitly defined, by the learned Schooleman, ‘A vice contrary to Religion, Aquin. 22. q. 92. a. 1.2. in the excesse,’ (as profanesse is the other [Page 2]contrary, in the Defect.) Not that a man can be too Religions indeed, in the commanded worship of God, Dr. Ames. in medul. on second Command­ment: Aquin. ibid. with respect, or in order to the formall vertue of Religion; but (as one explaines himselfe) in order to the Acts, or externall meanes of worship, superadded by the wisdome, or will of man; ‘when a man tenders worship, either to whom it is not due, or not in that manner, which he ought.’ Now, in Religion, or worship of God in generall (as distinct from Justice, or Charity in the se­cond Table,) foure things are considerable, according to the foure Commandments of the Table. 1 A right Object, God alone; 2 a right Matter, commanded worship; 3 a right man­ner, with all due Reverence; 4 a right Time, his owne appointed Day: and answerable Super­stition may extend to the whole first Table, Superstition is that which adds humane indeavours to divine precepts. Vrsin. in 2 precept. More then is ap­pointed by the law of God. D. Fulk in Act. 17. s. 4. Worship without Gods com­mandement. M. [...]erk. on the second Com­mand. when there is a Ni­miety, or excesse in any of these. For the Discoverie where­of, we must observe, that the Commandements of God, having every one of them, a Negative, and an Affirmative part, (expressed or understood) the Duties of Reli­gion doe stand in the midst, as vertues, between two extremes: As e. g. there is a double errour against the first Commandement, one in the Defect, that's Atheism, having no God at all; [Page 3]the other in excesse, that is Polytheism, ha­ving too many. 2 In the second Commande­ment, there is, first a Defect, not observing Gods prescribed worship, than an excesse, in adding and observing devised worship. 3 So also in the third Commandement, there is a Defect, in want of Reverence due to the Di­vine Majesty (which is sometimes partly cal­led profanesse) and an excesse in additions of Ridiculous rites and ceremonies or gestures, and the like. 4. In the fourth Commande­ment, there is a Defect, in observing no Time, when Gods designed Sabbath is neglected, and an excesse, when men institute other Holy Dayes and Times, as Jeroboam did, 1 King. 12.32. ‘He ordained a Feast, — like unto the Feast that was in Judea.’ Thence it is apparent, that in this generall sense, there may be Superstition, in, or against all the Com­mandements of the first Table, in the exces­sive part; and it were easie to observe, that many (Divines especially) doe call the exces­ses of any Commandement, by the name of Superstition.

§. 3. And hence it may appeare, that some are too short, in designing the Species or kinds of Superstition; As first the learned Schoole­man; who makes but three kinds of it, ‘Ido­latry, Illegitimate worship, and Divination.’ The first and last whereof, Ibid a. 2. in corp. are referred by Di­vines to the first Commandement; and the o­ther, [Page 4] illegitimate or uncommanded wor­ship, to the second: For Idolatry, properly so called, is either the worship of a false God, instead of the true; or of many, or other Gods with him: And Divination, being a consult­ing with the Devill, is a giving of that ho­nour to him, which is due onely to God, and so the worst kind of Idolatry; So he limits Superstition, D. Ames. Medul. on the second Comman­dement. only to two Commandements. But I find another Reverend Doctor, restrain­ing it to one Commandement, viz. the se­cond, when he designes it thus. ‘Superstition is (a vice) whereby undue worship is ten­dered unto God.’ Hee means that worship to be undue (which the Schoolman called illegitimate) which is not commanded by God, but instituted and appointed by men: But this limits it onely to the second Com­mandement, which is more properly called, VVillworship, [...]. and is but one Species of Su­perstition: Whereas there may be Superstition against any of the four first Commandements. For instance: The worshiping of many Gods, by the Athenians, and other Nations against what Commandement was it? Surely against the first; yet this by the Apostles is called Su­perstition, Act. 17.22. I perceive you are [...], too Superstitious: ‘He means (saies our Doctor) they worshiped more Gods than other people.’ Sect. 11. And the Worshiping of Angells, Col. 2.18. with the true God, is [Page 5]an Excesse against the first Commandement, Will wor­ship. sect. 20. yet by the Doctor himself, is called, that crime of Superstition. Again, when Baals Priests used those barbarous Ceremonies in their worship, leaping and cutting them­selves; and when Papists use as many and more ridiculous Rites and gestures in their worship; this is an Excesse against the third Commandement, yet who would not call these Superstition? as taking Gods Name in vain. And lastly, when Ieroboam made a Feast day of his own head, and Papists dedi­cate Holy daies to Saints; So called by Plu­tarch. sect. 19. yea when the Iewes were so scrupulous in observing their Sabbath, that they would not stand up to de­fend themselves, were not these Excesses of Religion, against the fourth Commande­ment? yet justly called their Superstition.

§. 4. Superstition then, in this generall notion, as an Excesse of Religion, hath as many species, or kinds, as there are Com­mandements of the first Table; But it is no easie matter, to discover all the kinds and waies, whereby it is committed in particular; or when we have found them, punctually to determine to what Commandement they doe belong. And therefore the courteous Reader will easily pardon us, if we be not so logi­cally accurate, as we would be in setting down the particular kinds. We shall labour to expresse some of them, as we find them held [Page 6]out by Divines and others, upon severall oc­casions. There may be therefore 2. Heads of Superstition.

§. 5.1. Negative, when men abstain from somethings, under a notion of Religion, or worship of God, which are not forbidden by God, but left free, and indifferent: either not forbidden, or, if once they were, now anti­quated, or outdated, as our Doctor saies: And of this sort was that, Col. 2.21. ‘Touch not, tast not, handle not; which was Super­stitious Negative willworship.’

§. 6.2. Positive, when men of their owne hearts and Heads, set up waies of Religion, to worship God by, which he never comman­ded; And this, (as was said) may be com­mitted, against any of the four first Comman­dements. This distinction, the Doctor ownes, (of Negative, and Positive Superstition,) and makes use of it against others hereafter, Sect. 29. thus: ‘In things indifferent, it is as crimi­nous and superstitious, to place piety in the Negative, as in the affirmative; in not kneeling as in kneeling, in abstaining scru­pulously from ceremonies, as in using them as scrupulously.’ Thus farre then we have his consent, for more waies than one, for men, at lest Protestants to be superstitious; which hereafter he does almost deny: Sect. 47, 48. of which in its place. Now this Positive Superstition, may be exemplified, in many particulars.

§. 7.1. In that which is properly called [...], rendred by our Translators, by Superstition: Act. 25.19. and elsewhere; The wor­shiping of these (as a­mongst Papists) is most properly called Su­perstition: Sect. 3. And this may be, either when men worship many Gods, or onely one (with the true) and for this the Athenians are called too su­perstitious, Act. 17.22. or else, when they have ‘an excesse of fear, or being afraid of God, when they need not, as thinking them­selves bound, as from God, when God nei­ther commands, nor forbids; Of this kind, is the doing or abstaining Religiously (i. e. upon pretence of Divine precept, or prohi­bition) from those things, which the word doth neither command, nor interdict.’ They are the Doctors own words, Sect. 46. below. Onely he is short, in short expressing, Religi­ously, by pretence of Divine precept, or prohibition, for it signifies also, a pretence of worshiping God thereby: When men have a slavish fear, or hard opinions of God, then they are justly called Superstitious.

§. 8.2. That which is more strictly call­ed [...], Willworship, which is, the placing the VVorship of God, in those things which are the meer inventions, and instituti­ons of men; never commanded by God: The Papists can give us instances enough; In the Sacrifice of the Masse, in habits, Eremiti­call and Monasticall life, Pennances, Pilgri­mages, &c. which they esteem, and practice, [Page 8]as speciall worships of God, and are by the re­formed Churches, stiled justly Super­stitious.

§. 9. 3. When men institute any rites or ceremonies, Ridicu­lous cere­monies turn it in­to evill: willwor­ship, sect. 25. for the service of God, which are ridiculous (as the Baalites did) or un­beseeming the simplicity of Gospell-worship; This is no better, than Superstition, and a taking of Gods Name in vain. The Church of Rome can afford us good store of these. These, though they be not VVorships invent­ed by men, yet are Additions to the worship commanded by God, and so an Excesse in Religion, and justly branded as Supersti­tion.

§. 10.4. When men put Holinesse upon things, which God hath not sanctified by their own consecration; as in Daies, Chur­ches, Vestments, &c. Jeroboam was deeply guilty of this Superstition. First in consecra­ting Chappells and Priests, for his Golden Calves, in Dan, and Bethel, and then in con­secrating an Holy Day, and Annuall Feast, unto his Gods, ‘like unto the Feast in Judah (of Gods appointment) the month which he had devised of his own heart: 2 King. 12.9.32, 33.’ or as the word is, created, [...] An ordinary misdevotion, in the Church of Rome, and in some of late amongst our selves: Though the Doctor grudge to grant it the name of Superstition, as we shall hear at Sect. 50.

§. 11.5. The placing of perfection in an high degree, in some states and conditions of life which God never placed in them. As in that store house of superstition, the Church of Rome, in voluntary Poverty, Virginity, Celi­bate and voluntary Martyrdome, when God doth not command, or call unto them. And this last of Martyrdome, the Doctor seemes to make the highest degree of perfection, in his Tract of VVillworship. Sect. 44. For either he must mean it of voluntary Martyrdome, when a man ambitious of it, shall rush into it, (as many in the primitive times did) with­out a call from God, and then it is so farre from an higher degree of perfection, that, in the judgements of the best Divines, it de­serves not the name of Martyrdome: Or else he must intend it of Martyrdome, when God calls a man to suffer, and then it is a duty, (or at most, but a priviledge) rather than any state of perfection.

§. 12.6. When men think by their owne, uncommanded worship, and services of God, either to merit pardon of their sinnes, against other Commandements; as shee Pro. 7.14. &c. ‘I have peace offerings with me, this day have I paid my vowes,’ which were free willing offerings, as not commanded; ‘Come let us take our fill of love,’ &c. q. d. though I have runne into debt, by my former whoredomes, I have now satisfied God with [Page 10] freewill-offerings, and have quit the score. Or to purchase Glory, at least a greater de­gree of Glory for themselves, and to super­erogate for others, by doing something not commanded, as Papists plainly do. How near the Doctor comes to this kind of Super­stition, we shall shew anon, VVillworship, Sect. 50. &c.

§. 13.7. When men place more pleasing of God, and expect more Acceptation from God, for services or worship uncommanded, than for those cōmanded by God. The Apostle intimates some such conceit in men, 1 Cor. 8.8. when he saies, ‘meats commend us not to God; for neither if we eat, are we the better (in our selves, or better accepted with God) neither if we eate not, are we the worse (or are lesse, and lesse accepted with God)’ yet such as abstained from some meats, had such thoughts of themselves. And this shall be ma­nifested to be the opinion and expectation of the Doctor, for his voluntary worship (worship not commanded by God) to be better pleasing, and to find better Acceptance from God: Tract of Willworship. Sect. 16.19. and here Sect. 52.

§. 14.8. Lastly (to adde no more) the placing of more virtue and efficacie, in things, than either Nature, or the Institution of God hath placed in them: This is acknow­ledged to be an Excesse, and so Superstition by [Page 11]the Doctor, sect. 45. ‘The placing of more virtue in some things, than either Natu­rally, or by the rule of Gods word, or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church may be thought to belong to them, is guilty of a Nimiety.’ His instances given, are very per­tinent and considerable. ‘1. Placing virtue or force in the signe of the Crosse,’ which is done, not onely by Papists in crossing them­selves to scare away the Divell, but also by many ignorant, and ill-taught Protestants, who require crossing of their Children in Baptism, as thinking them not well baptized, without. ‘2. The womens parvula evange­lia. 3. opus operatum,’ the common Super­stition of all naturall men, and Hypocrites. Concerning which, his judgement is good. ‘The doing of which, is either groundlesse, and then it is folly: or else it fastens some promise on Christ, which he hath not made in the Gospell, &c. But why he should add, See infra. sect. 34. In the estimation of the purer ages of the Church,’ I do not well understand, but shall consider in its place.

§. 15. Having thus made way for our de­bate with the Doctor, by shewing the Nature of Superstitiion; we shall now enter the lists, Sect. 1. and consider what he saies about it. And to his first Section, wee say: It may be true, ‘that some may unjustly be charged with the crime of Superstition, by ignorant or mali­cious [Page 21]defamers of others best actions.’ But it is as true, that some that think themselves ‘assured in conscience that they are farre e­nough from the guilt of it,’ may justly be charged with it. Commonly those that are most Superstitious, are most confident of their Innocency, and piety; Many of the Ro­mish Proselytes, doe think they are farre e­nough from this crime, in their highest will­worships, and rather to deserve Commendati­on from men, and more Acceptation from God, than blame from any. And no marvaile, if they understand Superstition, in the same sense, that the Doctor does, in this discourse. That is,

§. 16. ‘Superstition in latine, is most clearly, Sect. 2. superstitum cultus, the worship of some, departed from this world, supposed to have life in another.’ Sect. 2. That the Heathens so defined it, is true, and that the worshiping of such then, and by Papists now, is one kind of Superstition, So the Dr: in sect. 3. we have already granted; as being the Worshiping of Creatures, with, and besides the Creator, which is Ido­latry against the first Commandement. But the Doctor will not say, (I think) that this is the onely superstition to be found in the World, either then, or now. For he grants [...], an Excessive fear of the Deity, to have been another kind of Superstition a­mongst the Heathens; and other kinds also [Page 13]among Christians, as wee shall heare anon. Some there are (and they no mean ones) that derive it from super, and sto, or statuo, as su­pra statutum, some worship instituted by men, above the statute law of God; But wee rather rest in the definitiion of the Schoolman; ‘Superstition is a vice contrary to Religion, in the excesse;’ which may extend to the other Commandements, whereas this limits it to the second.

§. 17. The Greek word for Superstition, [...]; though it seems to come nearer the Doctors sense, of superstitum cultus, yet the Etymology of the word, does not import so much; but rather a slavish fear of a Deity, by imagining it, Cruell, Tyrannicall, &c. as the Doctors words, ‘dreading the Gods, as so many Tyrants, sect. 13. a cowardly trem­bling fear; a care & fear of evill spirits,’ sect. 9. For though the latter part of the word signifies daemons, or Spirits departed, yet the former part does not signifie worship, but fear: not that fear, which in Scripture, is often put for the whole worship of God, but a slavish fear of that God whom they wor­ship; whereupon they (not knowing, or not contented with prescribed worship) devise some way of worship of their owne heads, For fear of venge­ance: as sect. 24. to please and propitiate their God; which may well be called Superstition, or willworship; the one against the first, the other against the se­cond Commandement.

§. 18. The Doctor from the 4. Sect. to the 10. having delivered the many senses of the word [...]; he saies, ‘ [...] referres to the three first, Poeticall Gods, Angells, or Dead-men, or indeed any thing, but the one Supreme God.’ This clears what I said before, that this word and worship is rather Idolatry against the first Commandement, which forbids the worship of any God but the one true God, or any others with him, which is Polytheism, than that kind of Su­perstition, which is the giving of false, that is uncommanded worship, to the true God, a­gainst the second Commandement.

§. 19. But he adds, Sect. 11. ‘VVhen Paul tells the Athenians, Act. 17.22. they were [...], hee meanes they wor­shiped more Gods or Daemons than the Ro­mans, &c. or were more devout, more pious, in their worships than any others.’ If (say I) they were so called, because they worshiped more Gods, then they were Polytheists against the first Commandement; If, because they were more devout or pious (impious rather) in worshiping the true God ignorantly, in a false manner, then their sinne was against the second Commandement; and in both it was Superstition, in severall kinds.

§. 20. What Festus meant by [...], Act. 25.19. is not much materiall; its like he spake it with scorn enough, not of [Page 15] Pauls onely (as the Doctor seems to limit it) but of the whole Jewish Religion; Sect. 12. (for so the words may import, and are so translated by ours.) But to make the latter part of the verse, to expound the former; ‘of one Iesus that was dead, putting him under the vul­gar notion of a [...], or dead Heros, and so meaning the worship of him by [...], is,’ I doubt, a strain of the Doct­ors Criticism; compounding things, which are in the Text distinct. For Festus saies, ‘they had many questions, both concerning their own Religion (Superstition) and also, concerning one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive,’ but not a word there, of worship of him, as a [...], or Heros: which may the better be beleeved, be­cause hee was accused of questions of their Law. cap 23.29. [...], and chap. 24. where Tertullus laies in his charge against Paul, there is not one word of this, but o­ther grievous crimes, Sedition, Seducement, profanation of the Temple, &c. v. 5.6. But the Doctor having taken liberty (as oft he de­lights to doe) to vary from the common Translation of [...], their, rendring it by (his) and of [...], reading Religi­on; to qualifie, at least, Superstition; he goes on to make his Comment sutable; that ‘Pauls Religion was, in worshiping of Iesus as a [...], or dead Heros: Whereas [Page 16] 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.

§. 21. What Epicurus Doctrine was, or what Heathens thought of the word [...], wee are not much Sollicitous; The Doctor having shewed a great deale of Reading and Learning, for many sections to­gether, from the 14. to the 27. to little pur­pose, except to cloud the businesse now in hand, to lead us away, in a mist of his owne making, from the true and proper sense of the word, Sect. 17, 18, 19. amongst Christians. Yet it seemes the Heathens did often take the word in an ill sense, & branded Religions which they did not like, by that name. Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superstition, in two things remark­able: 1. ‘That they were tyed by their Su­perstition, as with a net; that when they were invaded,’ they would not rise from their seates, on their Sabbath day, which was an Excesse against the fourth Commandement, and grosse Superstition. For necessity was priviledged to break the Sabbaths Rest. 2. ‘Their killing and sacrificing their Chil­dren to Moloch,’ which being a horrid su­perstition, was (as the former) intended as a worship of the true God, and yet was inter­preted no better, than sacrificing to Divells, Psal. 106.37. as all Idolatry was by the A­postle [Page 17]1. Cor. 1 [...].12. which though in o­ther respects, it was against the first Com­mandement, grosse Idolatry, so in making it a worship of the true God, (when ‘hee commanded it not, neither came it into his heart,’ as somewhere he saies) it was a kind of Superstition, against the second Commandement. And in a word, the Ety­mologist speakes fully our sense. ‘The word among the Heathens is taken for a good thing, but among Christians for impiety.’ Sect. 23. cited by the Doctor.

§. 22. From that large discourse about the word, at last, Sect. 27. the Doctor comes to apply it to his purpose, and to dis­cover three inconsequences, in our customa­ry use of the word, Superstition. Sect. 27. ‘First that it is inconsequent, that Superstition simply and abstractly taken, should be re­solved in all Authors, to signifie somewhat which is evill, that since particularly, which is false worship.’ But, (with his fa­vour) this is not the question between us; but, whither in the Scripture, and Ortho­dox Divines, commenting upon that word, it doe not alwaies signifie something evill, and particularly, excessive and false wor­ship. What the Etymologist thought of it, as the common opinion of Christians, wee newly heard: And this is the more pro­bable, [Page 18]because even most of the Popish Com­mentators doe take the word in an ill sense, Vulg. super­stitiones Act. 17.22. and render [...], by Superstition; without any pretence of a good sense of it; which, no doubt, they would be glad to hear, to colour, and cover their own Will­worship, and Superstition. The Doctors reasons for his opinion, have been conside­red afore, but briefly now again; ‘1. Those that use the word, to expresse their owne worship, conceive it to be a creditable word, or else would not call it by that name.’ No doubt, but Heathens did think well of their own worship: But it being a false worship, it was never the better for that. See Quaer. of divorce. sect. 58. Blaming this in a­nother. And it is observable, that in all the Doctors former large discourse, hee brings onely Heathens, to shew the meaning of the word (bad enough sometimes) but not one Divine, Greek or Latine Father, or any Moderne writer, Papist, or other, who take it in a good sense; which was not, I believe for want of good will, but something else. 2. His next reason is ‘when Saint Pauls Religion was called by that name, Act. 25.19. it appeares not that Festus did use that word as an accusation, or in an ill sense, but in generall to signi­fie Pauls Religion, &c.’ Something hath been said to this above, Sect. 20. and now [Page 19]we adde; It appears rather to signifie some­thing ill, in his opinion; For Festus was not a man of so much Religion, or had any such esteem of the Jewish Religion, as to give it any credit; and therefore spake of it, Superstition was made matter and reproach to the Ro­mans. sect. 22. as of a Superstition, as men use to call all, not of their own Religion, by way of de­famation, as the Doctor saies, Sect. 24.3. The third reason is, ‘Saint Paul himself, Act. 17.23. saith of the Athenians, they did worship the true God though ignorant­ly taking him for a [...].’ And is not worshiping of the true God, ignorantly, with their own devised worship, a Super­stition justly to be condemned? was it not grosse Idolatry, and sinfull Superstition in the Israelites, to worship the true God, in the Golden Calfe? 4. Than o­ther men, is the Doctors gloss; it may as well signi­fie, more than is meet, and thats too Religious in the ex­cesse. ‘He calls them [...], more Religious than other men, not in relation to any vitious rite, but to their worshiping the unknown God, which wor­shiped others not.’ But this, as it begges the question, so is it against the text it selfe. ‘I perceive that in all things you are too Superstitious,’ both in their worshiping of so many false Gods, ( [...]) and a God in their ignorant worship of the true God, and in their vitious rites of wor­ship. And this sense, the Doctor himselfe gave, Sect. 11. ‘I consider and behold you [Page 20]in all things (or in all that I see in you) as men more superstitious than others,’ though the word imports, too Superstiti­ons, too Religious; which is a Nimiety or Excesse in Religion, and so justly called Superstition, in an ill sense, unlesse the Doctor thinke, that to worship many false Gods, and to worship the true God igno­rantly, be worthy the name of true Religi­on, which the Apostle there censures, by the name of Idolatry, ver. 16. ‘Hee saw the City [...], given to Idolatry, or full of Idolls.’ And the vulgar rendring the word, ver. 22. by Superstitiosiores, too Superstitious, cannot intend it in a good sense; yea the Doctor Sect. 31. grants that Superstitiosus in the Positive, signifies Ex­cesse more then in the Comparative.

§. 23. The second Inconsequence (hee saies) is this: Sect. 28. ‘That the use of Ceremonies, or rites in the worship of God, if not distinctly prescribed, either by the exam­ple or precept of Christ, should be called Superstition, and for that condemned.’ But I beleeve, this is a mistake; None that I know, make such a consequence; but rather thus: That what rite or ceremony soever, is made a part of worship, without such example or precept of Scripture, is Superstitious, and therefore condem­ned.

§. 24. The third inconsequence, Sect. 29. is a worse mistake; ‘That men on pretence, and in the name of Piety, should abstain from some observances (indifferent) as Superstitions, either because commanded by lawfull au­thority, or abused by Papists.’ For the first charge, I beleeve hee cannot give an instance of any one understanding Christian, that ever did abstaine from observance indifferent, be­cause commanded by lawfull authority? but rather because they were thought not indiffe­rent, but obtruded on them as parts of wor­ship. For the other, that they have been used by Papists, is not all, but that by them they have been abused, and accounted parts of worship, and may easily return to be so ac­counted by others.

§. 25. We acknowledge this assertion, Sect. 30. 31. that ‘Superstition may, and doth in some authen­tick writers, sacred especially, signifie a Nimiety, or Excess in Religion.’ What saies he to it? First he confesses ‘Superstitiosus may denote such excess, but so also doth Religiosus, but then Superstition denotes it no more, than Religio.’ Agreed, for Religi­on it selfe is sometimes taken for Superstition, when it is applyed to a false Religion: And all such Excesse in worship not prescribed, is a Nimiety, and culpable, what ever A. A. Gellins. Sect. 32Gellius dreamed, as an ill Judge of Super­stition.

§. 26. If so used by some Authors, yet hee can say much against it, Sect. 32. as 1. ‘That some, not of the meanest antient Heathens did it, on the ground of Epicurean Divinity.’ Wee professe we regard not, what the best of Hea­thens say in matter of worship, who never knew, what true worship of God meant. 2. ‘For Christian writers, the use of a word in that sense, is so slight and casuall, that not sufficient to fasten an ill character upon it,’ &c. It is no slight or casuall thing, as hee makes it; for all Divines that speake of this matter, do generally condemn it, as a thing of ill name and fame, even Papists themselves: and its proved by this Topick, by most of them, because it is an Excess in Religion, and illegitimate worship. 3. ‘That those that come home to the point, are so few and mo­dern, and of so small authority, that scarce worth producing,’ with slighting and skorne enough spoken; But why then doth not the Doctor in all this discourse give us the names of those many, Antient, Authentick Fa­thers, &c. that take it in a good sense? Hee u­ses not to be so sparing, where he hath such plenty of Authorities. 4. The last is some­thing nearer the question; which supposing it to be taken in an ill sense, for excesse, &c. saies, ‘Then it must be reduced to these two sorts, as consisting either in the degree, or in the number of Actions, in quality or quan­tity,’ [Page 23]wee consider what hee saies to both.

§. 27. ‘First, in the first kind, Sest. 33. hee denies there is any such excess; There is no possi­bility of being Religious in too high a de­gree, praying too fervently, too often, &c.’ But what saies hee to the arguments of the great Schoolman, Aquin. 22.9.92. a. 1. who proves Superstition to be an excess in Religion? and withall shewes how he meanes it. ‘Not because Superstiti­on does yeeld more to divine worship, than true Religion; but because it exhibites Di­vine worship, either to whom it ought not, or in that manner it ought not.’ We say (as afore) in prescribed worship, there can be no Excess of degree: The want of the highest degree there is a Defect; A man cannot pray too earnestly (what ever he may doe too of­ten) for that is naturall and prescribed wor­ship: But if a man shall tender to God, devi­sed worship, the least degree here is too much: As for too often praying, the Euchitae were unjustly condemned, if this was not a fault: Yes (saies he) ‘their fault was not their excessive practice, but the laying that obli­gation upon themselves and others.’ And why not both these? For God having prescribed all men Callings to be waited on; hee that shall pray continually to the Interruption thereof, sinnes as well, as he that prayes not at all. But (saies hee) ‘the fault is the [Page 24]neglect of the duties of our calling, not the excesse of devotion.’ We say the neglect of their Duties, is caused by the Excess of this constant, uncommanded Devotion: and so one sin is the cause of another. As for their laying it on themselves or others as an obliga­tion, its true, thats a fault; but suppose they had layd no such obligation, but onely thought it a matter of greater perfection, more pleasing, and acceptable to God; had not this been Superstition also? His supposi­tion of ‘separating that Excess, from these neglects or omissions, and then it would not be criminous, to pray continually,’ is not feisable in this life; unlesse hee could find a man, that had no Calling to labour in. If any man might have been allowed to pray or serve God continually, Adam in innocencie might have been the man; and yet he was set to a calling, to dress the Garden. ‘That the frequency of prayer could not be Superstiti­ous, unless the worship and institution it self were Superstitious,’ which he collects from Sa [...]nt Austin, shall give us a double inference; First that an institution of worship (by men) may be Superstitious: 2. That hee seemes to contradict himself; For in worship com­manded, as prayer is, a man may be Super­stitious, if he pray constantly, and neglect his calling; which latter he cannot but doe, if he doe the former.

§. 28. If the Excess be in the extension, as taking in too many rites and ceremonies, Sect. 34. into the service of God, when he saies, 1. ‘By this it is granted, the rites and ceremonies themselves are not superstitious, but onely the multitude.’ But first, we shall say, that multitudes of rites and ceremonies, are preju­diciall to the simplicity of Gospell worship, and therefore either are, or will be quickly Superstitious. 2. Wee say further, that rites and ceremonies, be they never so few, if in­troduced as parts of worship, are Superstitious, and will worship: as certainly in the old Law, the least rite and ceremony prescribed by God, was a part of worship, whither they were sig­nificant or not: and so they would be now, if any such be found prescribed: but if made parts of worship by men, they were Super­stitious; as will not be denyed of many rites in the Church of Rome. 3. Though some rites and ceremonies must necessarily be in Re­ligion, yet they are such as pertain to Order and Decencie, 1 Cor. 14.40. which yet are not left to the wit and will of man, to ap­point what, and as many as shall seeme decent or orderly to them; but are determined partly by the generall precepts of God; partly by the nature of the things themselves, & partly by circumstances which occasionally offer them­selves; and are rather called circumstances of worship, as time, place, gesture, which are [Page 26]mon adjuncts of Religious and civill affaires, (instanced by himselfe) than properly Re­ligious, in ecclesiasticall rites and ceremo­nies; much lesse to be accounted parts of worship,

§. 29. Our Divines, though they doe allow some rites or ceremonies, (or rather circumstances) in worship, Sest. 35. such as before; yet they do condemn significant Ceremonies, in the Church of Rome; unlesse they be such, as either Christ hath appointed, as in the Sa­craments, or such as naturally signifie such a thing; or such as the Scripture gives instan­ces of; as lifting up the hand in taking an Oath; or the Eyes to Heaven in prayer, &c.

§. 30. Of this kind, are those three sorts of significant ceremonies specified by him; ‘1. Sect. 36. When it naturally signifies the thing, or floweth from it, as lifting up the eyes to Heaven, signifies zeale. 2. When custome hath made it significative, as kneeling sig­nifies humility. 3. When it is set to signi­fie something else, either matter of doctrine, as standing between Easter and Whitsun­tide to signifie the Resurrection, or matter of fact, &c.’ These and such like, as they have degenerated into Superstition, so in themselves, they are not any parts of wor­ship; which they would be, if taught or practised as necessary, or making the obser­vers more Religious than others, or more ac­ceptable [Page 27]to God, &c. But their significant ceremonies are Superstitious, when neither in their nature, nor by any instituted of God, they are instituted by men to signifie some grace to be procured from God, in the use of such ceremonies: of which sort the Church of Rome hath many.

§. 31. But herein the Doctor is again mis­taken, that he saies, ‘The sole reason why the old Jewish ceremonies are interdicted us Christians, is, Sect. 36: because the observing of those who foreshewed Christ, and teaching the necessity of them, would be the denying of Christ to be come.’ This indeed, was our reason, but not the sole one; just such an an­swer Bellarmine gives to an argument from Christian liberty against imposition of new Ceremonies by men: ‘Christ (saies he) would have us free from old ceremonies of Moses, Cham. Tom. 3. l. 15. c. 16. sect. 8, 9. because they were figures of the new Testament, and so to cease when the thing is come: But it followes not, we must have no ecclesiasticall Ceremonies or lawes, because we have not those.’ To which the learned Chamier replyes: ‘There was ano­ther cause of abrogation of those ceremonies (though Bellarmine conceald it) viz. be­cause they did load the Conscience, with a yoake of multitude of Ceremonies: and this is common to those, and to the Traditions of men.’ But we say further, 1. The false A­postles [Page 28]did acknowledge Christ come in the flesh, joyning Circumcision, &c. with him; and yet are blamed for observing of them: 2. Or was it the teaching of them onely as ne­cessary, that procured their blame? Nor that onely, but for putting the yoke of them, upon the Disciples necks, when Christ had taken it off, Act. 15. Gal. 5. 1 &c. 3. Unlesse obser­ving of them, and teaching them as necessa­ry, be one and the same thing, here are two causes of their interdiction to Christians: And if so, then I ask, whether, if he had ob­served some Jewish Ceremonie which did not foreshew Christ to come, (some such there were) but significant onely of some things past, (though they had not taught it necessa­rie) the Apostle would not have blamed them for that, as Superstitious? or had they devi­sed any new rites and ceremonies, &c. would not the Apostle have blamed them for that also, as too Superstitious?

§. 32. But the Doctor gives his vote, to the old Rule; ‘Ceremonies must be few and wholesome.’ Few, for many reasons, which we approve as good. Sect. 38.39. But then at last, in a manner grants, they may be many, ‘if they be wholsome, not onely negatively, as harm­lesse, but positively as tending to edificati­on, and then little reason to accuse them of excesse: for then more probably help devoti­on, then encumber it.’ But this is to unvote [Page 29]the old Rule in part: For if they be Salu­brious, wholsome, no matter how many they be: yea, "if but negatively as harmelesse, which is a dore wide enough to let in most of the Romish Superstitions; what harme is there in many of them? good innocent Ceremonies, as some have called them: But if positively for edification (as all willworshipers thinke of their own inventions) is that a plea to beare men out, in the multitude of Ceremonies, ad­ded to the worship of God? And suppose them few and wholsome, in the judgement of men; if they be imposed as parts of worship, or efficacious to procure grace, or Acceptance from God; are they not too many, be they never so few, and thought never so wholsome? Lastly, who shall be the Physitian to judge of their number and salubrity? not every private man, to be sure, Sect. 55, 56. ‘he is not al­lowed to be a competent judge,’ of indecency in them, much lesse of the number or whole­somenesse of them. Who then? the higher pow­ers, Sect. 55. whether Ecclesiasticall or Civil, he expresses not; But if men, or any number of men, may be competent Judges in the wor­ship of God, will not the Wisdome and wit of man expatiate here, and grow wanton? One man or Church, thinks, this is very whol­some, for edification and devotion; another as wise as he, will adde another, till the Church have a yoake put upon her neck, as [Page 30]heavie, or heavier than the Iewes. Who knowes not the multitude of wholsome Cere­monies of Rome, came in at this door.

§. 33. This question of a competent Iudge in such matters, is the matter to be resolved, because the Doctor makes so many distincti­ons about these wholsome Ceremonies, Sect. 42. that vulgar wits are not capable of them: ‘You distinguish of such Acts, wherein that ex­cess is supposed to be: that they are either ordinable, fit, or proper to that end, the service of God, or inordinable, unfit, &c.’ What ordinary man (who yet hath a Con­science to be satisfied in the worship of God) is capable of these distinctions? Hee confesses ‘there are great store inordinable, unfit, un­proper, of these in the Church of Rome?’ Yet they are not of the Doctors opinion; but think them all, both fit and necessary. But yet he hath a salve for such. ‘In this case, though any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault, yet still this not the fault of Super­stition; but rather of folly and vanity, &c.’ And I pray what is Superstition, but folly and vanity, in the worship of God? Are not Idols and all false worship called vanities, and fol­ly? ‘many such like things ye doe; Mar. 7, 8, 9. full well ye reject the Commandement of God that ye may keep your own Tradition: In vain do they worship me.’ Let the Doctor shew his dislike of such, as he will, yet if men [Page 31]may be Iudges, what are fit for number and wholesomness, every after-comer will thinke himselfe as wise, as he that went before, till they have loaded the Christian above the Jew. Besides, as the learned Chamier well ob­serves; there may be many mischiefes in a few, if the Authority to institute them be in the Church, or any man, or men: ‘For sup­pose they be but few now, yet we must consi­der, how many they may be hereafter; seeing the Authority is given to every succeeding Church or Pope, to constitute ceremonies or ecclesiasticall lawes, as they shall think fit; and so the yoake never certain, but alwaies growing;’ as experience tells us: To passe this: if Superstition be so named, because it is Super statutum, above the Sta­tute Law of worship; or because it is an Ex­cess of services added to the worship of God; certainly these unfit, improper Ceremonies may well be deemed such, Sect. 43. and the Doctor need not grudge the child the name of Superstition. As for those that charge such trifles, (they are to the Doctor, belike, but trifles) ‘with the title of Superstition, and then extend it to those things which have no such fault, and so run the circle.’ Let them for me, see how to get out. I onely still say, what ever deserves the name of Superstition, is a Nimiety and Ex­cess in Religion; and what ever is an Excess in Religion, is Superstition: Let's hear where­in the Doctor is pleased to place it.

§. Sect. 45. 34. ‘The placing of more virtue in some things, than either naturally, or by the rule of the word, or in the estimation of purer a­ges of the Church, may be thought to be­long to them: as in the crosse, &c.’ We spake something in generall to this, Sect. [...]4. but now wee shall assume, of all those Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, unfit, improper, &c. and of all superadded parts of worship what ever; They do place more virtue in them, than ei­ther naturally, or by the rule of the word be­longs to them; ergo they are Superstitious. The Assumption I prove thus: They place in them virtue to please God by them, to pro­cure more acceptance from God, and his blessing upon them; which neither naturally, nor by the rule of the word, the institution of God, they have in them: ergo. more might be added, but I forbear.

But what meanes the Doctor to adde, to his disjunction, ‘or in the estimation of pu­rer ages of the Church?’ Had the purer a­ges of the Church (after the Apostles) any power to put virtue into things, which they had not, either naturally, or by the Rule of Gods word? If he denies this, the addition was superfluous: If he affirm it, hee begges the question; For we say, the purest Church hath no Authority in matters of Religion, to put virtue or efficacie into them, but God onely, in Nature, or by his institution, in the [Page 33]word: Or if any, the Purest Church, shall take upon her to doe it, I shall make bold to adde the Doctors words, in part. ‘The doing of such, is either groundlesse, and then it is folly; or else it fastens some promise on Christ, which he hath not made in the Gos­pell.’ And what is that but a lye, and an Ad­dition to the word: a Nimiety, or excesse of Religion, as he calls it, that is, sinfull Su­perstition, and that would impure the purest Church.

§. 35. The Nimiety must be ‘an excesse of fear, or being afraid of God, when wee need not; as thinking our selves bound, when God neither commands, nor forbids; ab­steining religiously, &c.’ Wee take what hee grants, this is one kind of Superstition, (as we noted above in stating of the question, at Sect. 7.) but not the onely; there are many more. And I like the Doctors reason well, here; ‘because such a man addes to the Com­mands of Christ (as the former to the pro­mises) annexed to the Christian Religion, those things which belong not to it, and so is an exceeder in the fear and service of God, &c.’ And this is Superstition. Sect 47. And this he confesses ‘is a culpable and cri­minous excesse, not in doing what God com­mands not (for that may be innocent e­nough) but in affirming God to command or forbid, what he doth not, &c.’ True, in [Page 34]things left indifferent and free by God, hee is not guilty of this kind of Superstition; if he doe them, or abstain. But yet he may, of a­nother kind: that is, if he place more virtue in them, (in doing or abstaining) than ei­ther naturally or by the rule of the word, is due to them, (as he said before.) But in mat­ter of worship it is not so; For there, it is a Ni­miety and excesse, to doe what God hath not commanded, as wee have often said.

§. 36. When as he concludes, ‘That this way of dogmatizing; Sect. 47: 48. or imposing as ne­cessary such things as the Law of Christ hath not made necessary, is the speciall and onely kind of Superstition, which he be­leeves, any kind of Protestants to be guilty of;’ it is a great mistake. For 1. he granted another kind. Sect. 45. ‘In placing more virtue in things, than naturally, or by the rule of the word, belongs to them.’ 2. All Willworship devised by men, and added as parts of Gods worship, hath been proved to be an Excess in Religion, and so Superstiti­on; besides the rest, which we have noted a­bove. As for his addition, ‘of observing ominous, inauspicious events, unluckie daies, &c.’ they fall under his first kind of Su­perstition, Sect. 45. Placing anl putting more Virtue in them than God in Nature, or by his Institution hath put into them. Which though they be not properly Excesses of the [Page 35]Christian Religion, (being common to Hea­thens, and not properly worship) yet are they Excesses in Christians, that use them, and a kind of Superstition, call it Religious, or Civill, as he pleases.

§. 37. And now wee are come to another consideration, of the last way, that he sup­poses, may be called Superstition; and that is, ‘Because men place holinesse in some ob­servances, amongst us, Sest. 49 which (what ever may be said of it in thes [...]) in hypothesi or application to the particular cases, is gene­rally very false, or impertinent.’ Wee shall consider what he saies for it.

§. 38. 1. He askes, ‘what is meant by ho­linesse? reall inherent holiness, or onely sepe­ration from common uses?’ The latter onely, we would answer: Separation to holy, from common uses: that is, such a separation to holy uses, that the things may no more be ali­enated to common uses: this is proper holiness.

§. 39. But then the onely inquiry will be, ‘By whom, and how farre any thing, is thus separated; either by1 Christ, Sest. 51. or2 the A­postles, or the3 universall Church, in pu­rest ages, or the4 particular Church (and rulers thereof) wherein we live, or ⁵ if free, by our own Act.’ He tells us here, by whom the seperation is made, but not a word, how far, or in what difference, a thing seperated, by the severall Authors, is [Page 36]made holy, or whither it be equall in all. That a thing made holy, by a private per­son, is equally holy with that, done by a particular Church; and so upwards, that of the generall Church, equally with that of the Apostles, and that of the Apostles equall with that of Christ himself: this would first have been resolved. Hee seemes to make the difference of the Holiness, from their severall Seperations, to be onely graduall; but wee suppose it to be specificall, at least, betweene the Seperation of God or Christ, and that of the Church (to say nothing yet of the Apostles.) And withall, wee say, we desire a proofe, that any but God, or Christ, or his Apostles guided by his Spirit, can make any thing properly Holy: Now to make a thing properly holy, is not, to separate it onely to holy uses from common, (as the Doctor de­fines it. Sect. 50.) but to make it, 1. a part of worship, 2. to be efficatious to work and convey holiness, to him that rightly uses it: 3. to make the service & person, more accepted. 4. To give a ground of expectation of a Blessing, upon some promise thereof in the word, &c. In this sense none but God alone, can Sanctifie and Seperate any thing, to Ho­ly, from common uses. All which the Doctor either takes no notice of, or takes as granted, others may doe. For he saies, ‘The way to discern, whither we exceed [Page 37](that is, be Superstitious) in any of those afore, and place more holiness than is due to them, is to account them holy, in a degree proportioned to the authority of him that se­perated them.’ Wee shall speake something considerable to this. For 1. The difference between Christ and his Apostles, and the rest is not well, or not distinctly laid out: For the Apostles authority was also Divine, by Christs commission. 2. Then it followes, that the Authority of the Apostles, in their Sepe­ration, differed much from that of the Uni­versall Church, & the rest, as much as Divine & humane. 3. The precept or example of the Universal Church (as it cannot be demonstra­ted ever to have concurred, in making any thing holy, there never having been an Oecu­menicall Councill, truly so called, so) cannot make any thing properly holy, with the re­spects afore said; but onely improperly, with respect to holy things or duties, so made by God: e. g. In times or places seperated, by God or men; there is this difference (besides those above) that Time or Place, sanctified by God, require holy duties, to till them up. But seperated by men, they are to wait upon Holy duties. In the first, the duties are ap­pointed for the Time, or Places sake: In the other, the time or place, are appointed for the Duties sake: but this is to make any Time, or any Place, when and where [Page 38]those duties are performed, as holy as all other times or places, that is, the one no more Holy than another. We therefore deny, that either the Universall Church, or any parti­cular Church, or any private man, can make any thing properly Holy: which the Doctor doth not at all undertake to prove. Onely thus he goes on; ‘If that which is thus se­perated, be by Christ himself, I shall count it holy in that degree, and my selfe obliged by virtue of Divine precept, and so of the rest; and then I offend not.’ But 1. I suppose the Doctor will account himselfe obliged to an Apostolicall institution, by Divine pre­cept also: I had thought Apostolicall Hoe thought and said so, in his first Que­re, sect. 22. The A­postles Doctrines and insti­tutions, are so owned by Christ himselfe, that what is truly A postoli­call, is immediately and by necessary consequence, divine and infallible Sect. 52. and Divine, had been both one with the Doctor; but I perceive he makes them differ, and yet differences Apostolicall from Ecclesiasticall; as if the Apostles were neither Divine, nor Humane; but something between both. 2. By this distinction of his, the Papists may ex­cuse their grossest Superstition, in placing Holinesse, in things, times, places, &c. by borrowing the Doctors answer; ‘They may say, they account them holy, but either by the authority of the generall, or particular Church of Rome,’ and that is no Supersti­on, saies he, say they.

§. 40. But he goes on, ‘If my voluntary oblation, I perform as a voluntary oblation, and onely expect that God that hath promi­sed to accept such, will accept it; all this while I am not blameworthy.’ But 1. what meanes he by his voluntary oblation? If his willingness in tendering commanded worship, he cannot doe that worship aright, without respect to the command: If voluntary worship of his own, without a command, he hath no promise of acceptance, and so can expect none. Yea, he may rather expect, or fear punishment, threatned in the 2^d. Commandement, to such worship. 2. The Dr. may remember, that Sect. 45. he blamed that for Superstition, ‘when virtue is placed in some things, which na­turally, or by the rule of the word, does not belong to them,’ and gives the reason Sect, 46. ‘because that addes to the promises of the Gospell, and fastens a promise on Christ which he hath not made.’ Now how will hee free himselfe from Superstition, in his volun­tary oblation, that is, his uncommanded worship, unlesse hee can shew a promise in the Gospell, for such acceptance. For naturally there is no such Virtue in a Willworship; and Institution hee cannot plead; for that were a Contradiction; viderit ipse. But hee saies still; ‘In case of resolution, and vow, adde that respect in my performance, which is due to such, and I am not blameworthy.’ [Page 40]If hee meane, that his resolution and vow, makes his voluntary oblation more accepted; he addes to his Superstition, to second Will­worship with a vow, and so profanes his vow, as well as the worship of God. If he meane, that his vow is a further degree of worship; what will hee answer to the Papists, who make vowes of single life, and povertie, &c. to be a speciall worship of God; which he rejects. If he say, their Vowes are of things unlawfull, but mine of things lawfull: I grant this difference, but then say, that in making those vowes, or things vowed to be parts of the worship of God, they both a­gree, and both are Superstitious.

§. Sect. 53. 41. It is not then ‘the straining of these any degree above their ranke, as elevating an ecclesiasticall constitution into a Divine precept,’ &c. That onely makes him faulty, and that perhaps (saies he) capable of the title of Superstition. For if either the Church or he, place divine worship, accep­tance (more acceptance because not com­manded) or more perfection, &c. in such performances, it is, and will be Superstition still what ever they think. Besides, in devised worship, it is not enough to free from guilt of Superstition, to say or think, I account this or that holy, onely by the Authority of the Church, and not of Christ; For who­soever is the Author of such Holinesse, he [Page 41]places more in it, than God allowes, and so must needs be Superstitious.

§. 42. Obj. Papists and other Superstitious persons have don so, and so the thing is Super­stitious, and must be forborn, Sol. 1. Sect. 54. ‘The ill use of a thing will not corrupt a thing commanded or an innocent thing.’ True, but we suppose your voluntary oblation, not to be a thing commanded, but to be a thing for­bidden, as all Willworship is: and therefore to be forborn. 2. He saies, ‘there is nothing to oblige me to abstain, from that, which they have Superstitiously used, unlesse danger of being thought Superstitious as they, or making others be so; which is not Superstition, but scandall.’ To be thought Superstitious, when I may avoid it, is a wrong to my credit; to cause others to be so, is a wrong to their Soules: But these are not con­sequent of that we speake of, that is, of Will­worship, which is one of the worst kinds of Superstition; tendering that to God, as wor­ship, which he commanded not.

§. 43. And now the Doctor may be plea­sed to review, and if he will recall, his bitter, false, uncharitable conclusion, Sect. 57, 58. unbeseeming both his piety and gravity; For now it will appear (and shall doe more here­after) that the charge of Superstition upon some men, is no Mormo, nor yet unjust; but what is avowed by himself and party, to be [Page 42]their opinion and practice; and what is pro­ved to be really Superstitious, according to the true Notion of the word Superstition, a­mongst Reformed Orthodox Divines: which if it be not sufficiently yet mani­fested, shall more fully be made good, in the following Exercita­tion of Willworship.

OF WILL-WORSHIP.

Section 1.

HAD the Reverend and learned Doctor (as it became him) distinguished the words; either [...] in Greek, or Will­worship in English, before he be­gan his Defence of them; wee should better have been able, to judge of his Discourse a­bout them. For the words, in both languages, may be taken in a double sense. 1. For Volun­tary, Spontaneous, or willing worship, that is willingnesse and freenesse, in worship comman­ded by God; and then they were too blame, that put an ill notion upon them. Or 2. For worship devised by the wit, and appointed by the will of man, as contradistinguished, to the wisdome, and will of God; and then it was not so much the ill-Fortune (as he calls it) as the just punishment of them, ‘to passe under an ill notion, and to be taken for somewhat reproveable, as well in a Christian, as in an Heathen.’ For the summe and scope of the second Commande­ment, August. de consens. Evang. l. 1. c. 18. in the Affirmative part, being this. ‘God must be worshiped with his owne prescribed worship,’ and in the Negative [Page 45]part, ‘to forbid all devised worship of God, This is acknow­ledged by the Doct­or: God is to be worshipt in a man­ner pecu­liar to him, & appointed by him. Apend. on 2^d. Commandement. by the wit, or will of man.’ The very name of will (of man) put to worship of God, as opposed to the will of God, the onely Rule of worship, is as a brand in the forehead of it, to characterize it, as condemnable in all.

§. 2. How oft, or seldome the Greek word is used in other Authors, or the Translators of the old Testament, wee shall not trouble our selves to enquire; when the thing signi­fied by it, (in the second sense above, in which sense the Reverend Doctor doth and must take it, or he hath no Adversarie,) that is, ‘devised and imposed worship, by the will of man,’ is so much decryed, and declaimed against, in Scripture, as an high Indignity and affront, to the Divine Majesty. This is something, little to the credit of it; That the simple word [...], and the verb [...], are but twice a pe [...]ce, used in the booke of wisdom, and alwaies in an ill notion: 2. That [...] it self, being but once used in the New Testament: it is, (by the judge­ment of most Interpreters, Protestant and Po­pish) taken in an ill notion, as shall appeare hereafter.

§. 3. What the word [...], in the place, Col. 2.23. signifieth, may indeed be gathered from the Contents: But the Reve­rend [Page 46]Doctor, seemes too short, in laying of it out: ‘The Apostles discourse in that place, is (saies he) of [...], Doctrines of men, teaching some things to be forbidden by God, that he forbiddeth not.’ This is in part true; some false teachers might impose some Doctrines upon their brethren, as Gods Commands, when they were not, as being now outdated by Christ; but the scop of the Apostle is, Bez. in lo­cus. to dispute, in this Chapter, a­gainst the corruptions that were creeping in, in their Christian worship; which was the use and end of those Doctrines; and to stablish the Colossians against them: Which that it may appear, let us review the context, from the 4. verse downwards. Thus he begins: ‘This I say, that no man should beguile you, with enticing words.’ In the Greek, they are more significant; [...]: Put upon you Sophisticall Pa­ralogismes; In locum. The word Philoso­phy seems to me to be all one, with wor­shiping of Angels, v. 18. saies the Doct­or; Super­stition. Sect. 7. probabilitate sermonis, by pro­bable arguments, as Beza; by Rhetoricall in­sinuations, or sophisticall subtleties, as D. Davenant, explaines it, to lead you away from Christ. Now the Apostle goes on, to discover some of those toiles, and waies, whereby Se­ducers did beguile their followers. 1. Philo­sophicall speculations, having a shew of much wisdome; ver. 8. ‘Beware least any man spoil you through Philosophie;’ an instance whereof is given in the 18. ver. ‘in volunta­ry [Page 47]humilitie, and worshiping of Angells.’ 2. Traditions and Inventions of men, superad­ded, or continued in the worship of God; an instance wherof is in the 20.22. ver. ‘Why are yee subject to Ordinances, after the Comman­dements, & Doctrines of men.’ 3. Mosaical Ce­remonies, revived, after they were abrogated by Christ: of which he speakes, ver. 16.17, His scope in all, is to dispute ‘against all rites and Ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church, as parts of Divine worship, D. Daven in locum. as ne­cessary duties of holiness, and righteousness and as binding Conscience.’ As that learn­ed and judicious Professor, expresses it. And the Apostle opposes this onely against them, ver. 8. "They are not after Christ, but in­vented and imposed by men; Not after Christ, i. e. not after the Doctrine, or Com­mandement of Christ, in the Gospell; which he express [...]s in another phrase, ver. 19. ‘Not holding the head,’ but ‘after the Comman­dements, and Doctrines of men, ver. 22.’ Whence it appeares, that the Reverend Doctor seemes mistaken, when hee saies; ‘Where yet you must observe, he doth not speake of Commands, but Doctrines, i. e. not of the prohibition of the Magistrate, &c. but of false teachers, imposing them as the commands of God.’ For the Apostle speakes expresly, these impositions, Touch not, tast not, &c. ‘were after the Commande­ments, [Page 48]and Doctrines of men, ver. 22.’ and ver. 8. "after the Traditions of men, to worship God, by the observation of them: The worship of God, did once consist in these observations, and Abstinencies; and the false Teachers put them upon their followers, as still usefull to this end: Having done this, hee sets an ill Character upon those Doctrines of worship; ‘which things have indeed a shew of wisdom, in Willworship, &c. But are after the Commandements and Doctrines of men,’ not any Doctrines or Commands of Christ: and so no better, than Willworship, &c, The Doctor seemes to place the illnesse of this practice in this; ‘That they urging some abolisht ceremonies as still in force by divine precept, should thereby deny Christ to be come in the flesh.’ Which though it bee true in part, yet is not all that the Apostle here intended: but this he also addes, that they, placing the worship of God, in those observances, not after Christ, but after the Commandements and traditions of men, did fall into Willworship; which had a shew of wisdome, but no more. For it is not onely (sinfull) Willworship, to teach and observe the Old Ceremonies as parts of Gods wor­ship, when they are abolished; but also to in­uent a new way of worship (as that of wor­shiping Angells was for certain ver. 18.) and to put it upon God, as an acceptable worship.

§. 4. That wee have not mistaken the Doctors meaning, will appear by that which he addes, about ‘the difference betwixt ma­king of positive humane Lawes, in indiffe­rent things, and urging or teaching things for Divine commands, which either never were commanded by God, or else are now outdated by Christ: The Apostles discourse proceeds of the latter, &c.’ This is true, the Apostle hath here no reflection on the Magistrates making lawes, in indifferent things: but yet, if the Magistrate, or Church should invent and impose any new way of worshiping God (as the Church of Rome, hath done many) would not the Apostles arguing conclude them to be Will-worship, as well as if they had urged and taught some antiquated ceremonies to be observed, as a part of the worship of God The Doctor grants and asserts, Sect. 3. ‘That if the Magistrate should teach or impose Doctrines of men, upon others, as the Commands of God when they are not, he should thereby incurre the censure of a false teacher also;’ And if he should teach or impose some antiquated wor­ship, upon his people, though not as the command of God, would he not be a Teach­er of false worship also? As for his instance of David, who appointed the Levites to serve from the age of 20. years, whereas God by Moses had appointed it, but from 25. [Page 40]years old &c. It is first Impertinent, for hee brings it as an instance of a Magistrates pow­er in a thing indifferent, whereas this was in a matter of Religion, and more then so, in a matter formerly Commanded by God; where­in, what he did, is not imitable by any Ma­gistrate now: who hath no power to order a­ny thing in Religion, against a former Order of God, as in the case in hand, there was. What then may be said, for Davids altering the appointment of God (as in some other things besides? Divines do answer, that Da­vid was a Prophet, inspired by God, or directed by some other Prophet, how to Or­der the affaires of the Temple, and worship of God. And this to mee is evident, by texts of Scripture. 1 Chron. 28.19. ‘All this (said David) the Lord made me to understand in writing, by his good hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern,’ which hee ascribes to the Spirit of God, ver. 12, 13. & cap. 23.27. ‘by the last words of David, the Levites were numbred from 20 years old, of which he saies,’ ‘the spirit of the Lord spake by me, 2 Sam. 23.2, 3. But this by the way.’

§. 5. The full importance of the words, ver. 22. (hee saies) is this; ‘That when those abstinencies are imposed and taught, as divine obliging precepts, this is an abuse of them (which were otherwise innocent things) and that abuse of them dangerous [Page 41]or destructive.’ But 1. why doth he refuse our Translation of those word, ‘which all are to perish with the using?’ For the verb, from whence [...], is derived, signifies sometimes, simply, to use. Estius in locum. And the Civill Lawyers take Abusus, for the consuming use, ordinarily: 2. Whither the Apostle speaks of the meats, or of those ordinances of abstaining, both may be said to perish in the using: The meates apparently, and the Ordinances themselves, in this sense, that whereas whilst they were under Gods command, they were profitable to the ob­servers; now being outdated, they perish with the using, without any spirituall advan­tage. 3. There is little or nothing in the text, to import, that they were imposed and taught by the False Treachers, as Divine obliging precepts (though if so, that had beene an abuse of them) but rather that they were the Commandements and Doctrines of men; as the next words following are: and herein the Doctor places the danger, Sect. 6. as we shall see. Just as that Doctrine, ver. 18. concerning worshiping of Angels, in a voluntary humili­ty, &c. was the Doctrine, or command of a man "vainly puft up in his fleshly mind, but could not be pretended, much lesse imposed as a Divine command. So the Doctrines and Traditions of the Pharisees, were not plea­ded to be the Commandements of God, but [Page 42]expresly called the Commandements of men, Math. 15.9. and opposed to the Commande­ments of God, ver. 3.6. And in this Chap­ter, ver. 8. Those Doctrines are called the Traditions of men, and rudiments of the World. 4. I would ask the Doctor, whither the placing of the worship of God, in obser­vation of those Ordinances of Abstinence, though not taught nor imposed as Gods Commands, upon a mans selfe, or others, were not an abuse of them, and being a self-devi­sed Willworship, were not [...]. as de­structive, as the urging them still as Gods Commands? His great mistake is, that this was the onely abuse of them, and that ‘o­therwise they were innocent things,’ for so he sayes: which now he may see, they were not. And lastly the following words ver. 23. seem to imply, the abuse to have beene, not that they imposed them, as Divine Commands, but as parts of Divine worship (which the word [...] imports) in a pretended humility, and not sparing of the body, &c. For he saies, they have a shew of wisdome, not as the Commands of God, but in Will­worship, &c.

§. 6. Yet let us hear, wherein the Doctor, places the danger and destructivenesse of them. ‘That they were after the Commande­ments, and Doctrines of men; which words point out that, wherin the danger doth con­sist, [Page 43]to wit, imposing on men humane Ordi­nances or Doctrines.’ Stay there a while: Then (say I) they did not impose them as Commands of God; nor did the danger lye in that; But I desire to know, what it was that they imposed, by those Ordinances and Doctrines? was it not, a way of worshiping God by those Abstinencies, touch not, &c. The absti­nences they teach Sect. 7. I think the Doctor will not deny it: For it is not to be meant of imposing of Humane Or­dinances, about indifferent things, by the Magistrate; he hath cautioned against that, Sect. 3. & 4. but of Teachers, imposing them as Ordinances of worship, in Religion: and therein the danger did consist; because they imposed on men, humane Ordinances and Doctrines, to worship God by. The Doctors glosse of his own former words will now prove his own, that is, singular, when he addes ‘i. e. those things which though they were not commanded by God, are yet by men affirmed, pretended and taught, (though without proof) to be so comman­ded.’ The danger and destructivenesse ra­ther consisted in this, that they were but the Commandements and Doctrines of men, pla­cing the worship of God, in those observan­ces, which either he never Commanded, or were now outdated.

§. 7. And now we are come to the 23. Verse; which the Doctor makes to be, ‘A descrip­tion [Page 44]of the doctrines themselves, or the ab­stinences they teach, abstracted from all such accidental abuse.’ But this may prove a mis­take; for the words rather contain a descripti­on of the reason of that danger and de­structivenesse, in them: viz. because they were no other, no better than Willworship, w [...]th a fair pretence of Wisdome, because the Worship of God, was lately placed in them: and they carry a great pretension of Humili­ty, and Selfdeniall, in abstaining from things pleasing to the body, which they thought no doubt, would be pleasing unto God, and an acceptable service. The words indeed may be variously rendered by Interpreters, but without any great difficulty or difference. For the most part, they agree in the sense, though they differ in words. And I beleeve the Doctors Interpretation of it, is singular, without any precedent, either Antient, or Modern, Protestant, or Papist. Thus he pa­raphraseth the words. ‘Which things have some true, at least appearing notion of wis­dom in them (wisdom in Scripture signifying piety) i. e. have either some reall matter of piety in them (for so [...] signifies) and this would be more clear, if we should read, [...] in two words, thus, which things have somewhat of piety in them, or being considered in some respect, have piety in them, or as the Fathers rather understood it, [Page 45]some colour, some appearance of piety, to wit, in voluntary worship and humility, &c.’ But this is a strange Liberty, in Interpreting scripture, not onely that it waves the Inter­pretation of all our own Translators, of all the Antients, and even of Papists themselves for the most part (whom this glosse would much please) but also that he doth not bring his mind to the Scripture, but straines the Scripture to speak his sense and meaning. To examine it a little. 1. That [...] here signi­fies, some reall matter (what ever it doth elsewhere) is gratis dictum, and against the stream of Interpreters: Some render it Ima­ginem, as Jerome; some speciem, some pretex­tum: And the Greek Fathers, oppose against it, truth and power: what is it then, but a shew or appearance? 2. That hee renders [...], by piety, is as strange, in this place, (however in these Proverbs, and elsewhere, D. Davent in locum. it may signifie so) when most interpret it 1. by Wisdome: that is, ‘a shew of some excel­lent doctrine, rather brought from Heaven, than found out by men.’ Which to be the sense here, is most probable upon these grounds. First from the context, ver. 8. the Apostle calls it Philosophy, and ver. 18. hee saies) the Worshiper of Angels, ‘was puffed up in his fleshly mind, that is, in a carnall conceit of his own wisdom,’ in finding out that way of worship: For Superstition and [Page 46] Willworship ever pretends to Wisdom, Vid. Irenae­um lib. 3. c. 2. to bee wiser than God, in prescribing his worship: and this makes it so dangerous and de­structive, that men set their wisdom against, and above Gods; Secondly it may very well be parallell, to that place, 1 Cor. 2.4, 5, 6. where the Wisdom of God, and men are so flatly opposed, in preaching of the Gospell. ‘Not with entising words of mans wisdom; but in the demonstration of the spirit and power: the wisdom of God, &c.’ And this pretext of wisdom in Willworship arises from a double ground, 1. From the fraud of Im­postors, who alwaies boast, that their Tradi­tions proceed from the Spirit of wisdom; as the Pharisees, and Montanus did: 2. From the carnall minds of Superstitious men, who are much pleased to seek for righteousnesse and salvation, and to put holinesse in exter­nall rites and exercises; as that learned pro­fessor, on the place, hath well observed. 3. To assert that those things (those Absti­nences, as a worship of God) have somewhat of true and reall wisdome or piety in them, is a plain begging of the question, now be­tween us. For we say, (as allmost all Inter­preters doe) they have onely a shew of wis­dome, but no truth, nor reality, and that the Apostle condemnes them as Willworship, which yet the Doctor onely denies, by asser­ting the contrary, but proves not. 4. what [Page 47] presum ption is this, to read the words asun­der, [...], for [...], contrary to all Greeke copies, and Latine Interpreters, onely to make out his own glosse? And yet let him take his choice, and read as he please; it will not advantage him at all; for still it comes but to this, ‘which things have [...], some shew of wisdom,’ or piety, not some­what of wisdome, much lesse some true reall matter of wisdome in them. The Apostles scope being (as we think, and hee must not begge the contrary) not to hold out some­what of wisdome or piety in them, but rather of folly and impiety, as we shall shew hereaf­ter. Lastly, (as to this Section) he leaves out the particle [...], quidem, Estius in­locum. which is [...]n ex­tenuating particle: ‘They have indeed a shew of wisdome, but not the truth:’ Or they have indeed a shew of wisdome, but in Will­worship and Willhumility, &c. It's true, Inter­preters differ about the placing of the Ad­versative [...]. Some understand it to be un­derstood before Willworship, as afore; some at those words [...]: they have a shew of wisdom, but are yet of no price or worth. Beza. Herome thinkes the particle [...] is redun­dant, others think something is wanting; thus (after the manner of the Hebrewes) which things have a shew of wisdome, but not the truth. Much like that place 2 Tim. 3.5. ‘Having a form of Godliness, but de­nying [Page 48]the power of it.’ However, the Doctor did not well to conceal this particle; and to render [...] by voluntary worship, having not yet told us, what he meanes by it: of which anon.

§. 8. That the last part of the verse, ‘not sparing of the bodie, not in any honour, to the satisfying of the flesh, is added to shew, that there is somewhat of true or preten­ded piety, in those former Doctrines, by the contrariety, to that tending and filling of the flesh,’ which is so unlike piety, is another gloss like the former, an assertion without proof. For the neglecting, or punishing of the body (as the Doctor phrases it) by Absti­nence from things allowed by God, they placing the worship of God in it, hath indeed a shew of pretended wisdome or piety, as preferring the worship of God, before the belly, or body; but no truth, and is equally con­demned, as a Will worship, by the Apostle; At least, this is the question, and must not be begged.

§. 9. Yet this the Doctor doth: For hee takes it as granted, with not a little confi­dence; ‘That this interpretation which he hath given, is the most prompt, proper, and genuine rendring of the verse, that will be met with,’ and thereupon inferres, and re­solves, "that there is no ill character set upon [...] or Willworship, by [Page 49] ‘the Apostle in this place,’ which wee shall examine, when we have heard, what in his judgement is noted by it, which is this; ‘That voluntary Worship, or acts of Religi­on, which the Hebrewes call [...] Ne­dabah, the Freewill-offering, which was not required of them, by any obligation of particular law, and yet was not wont to be condemned, or suspected, but accounted as ac­ceptable to God: under which head, the Abstinences here spoken of, may not unfitly be comprehended.’ But there is a great mistake, in comprehending these Abstinen­ces under the Freewill offerings. For both, the Freewill offerings were something Posi­tive, and these Abstinences were Negative, rather not-offering, than offering, Touch not, tast not, &c. and also these Abstinences were commanded by speciall Lawes, but Free­will-offerings (he saies) were not required of them, by obligation of particular Law: This difference is enough at present, wee shall say more hereafter. And now wee attend his discourse, consisting in three things.

§. 10. First (hee saies) he will give his reasons, for his first Assertion, ‘That [...] is here used in a good credita­ble sense,’ which he endeavours by 6. Ar­guments, Sect. 11. ‘Because Willworship, is here joyned with two, not onely lawfull, [Page 50]but laudable Christian virtues.’ Before I come to the particulars, I cannot but note in generall, that taking the word here, in a good sense, the Doctor complies too much with Papists (most of them taking it in an ill sense) who use to take off the force of the Ob­jection by protestants, from this place, (a­gainst their Willworship, in their many Tra­ditions of worship) by answering that it is taken here in a good sense, and that (as the Doctor does) for voluntary Religion, Panstrat. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 5. or worship. Which good sense, the very learn­ed and acute Chamier professes, he never saw, in any Interpreter of the place. Onely he saies, he found Justinian the Jesuite, distin­guishing the word, to signifie (as the simple word, [...] does) sometimes Superstiti­on and Impiety, and sometimes pious and re­ligious worship, voluntarily undertaken; but yet, in this text, asserting it to signifie Super­stition, or as Ambrose saith, counterfeit Re­ligion. But hee shakes this distinction as groundlesse, as we shall hear anon. And now to the Doctors Arguments, to prove it taken in a good sense. First, ‘because it is joyned with Humility, which being by Calvin, (a man not much regarded by the Doctor in other things) interpreted in this place, the Reverence both of God and men, is no doubt a Christian virtue, and cannot de­fame the Willworship, to which it is associ­ated, [Page 51]&c.’ But by his favour, In affectâ­taque hu­militate, quae affecta­tae Religi­oni con­juncta est. Estius in locum. Humility here, is not that true and laudable Christian virtue, but a meer counterfeit, a pretended Humility, fit for a pretended Willworship: For the first words, signifying onely a shew, not any reality of wisdome, exemplifies it, first by Willworship (which is affected Reli­gion, having a shew of piety, but not the substance) and then in an affected and coun­terfeit Humility. And the Doctor may re­member, the same word is used in the 18. ver. Sect. 23. of which he saies hereafter, ‘it was an impi­ous kind of Mistaken Humility,’ and why may not this be so too? being both alike pre­tended, in a Will-worship, not commanded by God, but invented and imposed by men; And sure such impious mistaken Humility, is no Christian, or laudable virtue: But of that place more anon.

2. The next Pretence for his good sense, is, ‘Because it is joyned with punishing or not sparing, or (as Calvin) mortifying the body; which as an act of selfdenyall, cannot be acceptable to Christ, and as a species of of Revenge, 2 Cor. 11.7. In praepo­stera & in solita qua­dam ob­stinenti [...] & afflictic­ne corporis. ibid. Will deserve to be numbred among the effects of godly sor­row.’ But to this we say again, there may be such a punishing, not sparing, or mortify­ing of the body, and selfdenyall, which hath a shew of wisdom or piety, but is not onely a counterfeit, but an impious mistaken mortifi­cation, [Page 52]or selfdenyall, viz. when this punishing of the body, is made a part of the worship of God. What thinks the Doctor of the Baalites launcing and cutting themselves? What of all the Romish ridiculous pennances, pilgrimages, fastings, &c. Does he not justifie them, in all their Wilworships, and that from this text? have they not a great shew of Wis­dom, Piety, Devotion? of selfdenyall, and mortyfication of the body? are these accep­table to Christ: Are their selfpunish­ments, worthy to be numbred with that Re­venge, or accounted among the effects of godly sorrow? If he say, not, I ask, what is it that makes them impious mistaken morti­fication, &c. Hee cannot say, because they held those forth as Commands of God, for that they deny: then it must be, because they make them worships of God; Voluntary wor­ship, yet that the Doctor, endeavours to justifie, by this text. I shut up this thus; These two virtues (as hee calls them) are there so far from justifying Willworship, to which they are associated, that they fare the worse for it, and are made unchristian, and impious by its company. For though Humili­ty and selfdenyall, in the commanded worship of God, be excellent virtues; yet when they precede, or accompany the constitution of false, that is devised Willworship, no­thing is more impious and abhominable to God.

§. 12. The second reason of his good sense, is this, ‘Because these Doctrines are here said, in respect of the VVillworship, to have [...], somewhat of wisdom or piety in them: which somevvhat, if reall, then it is paralel to that of 1 Tim. 4.8. bodily ex­ercise is a little profitable still, or profitable for a little.’ Before I adde the rest, I say to this: 1. This somewhat reall matter of wis­dome, in willworship, in the judgement of most Interpreters, is nothing but a meere shew and appearance, and indeed reall folly and impiety, as was manifested on Sect. 7. And for the parallel place, the gloss corrupts the text; when he thus expounds it, ‘Bodily exercise profiteth a little, or for a little.’ For the Apostle opposing bodily exercise, to Godlinesse, which is profitable to all things, he means, that such bodily exercise, (ab­stinence from marriage, and meats) made a service or worship of God, is profitable for nothing, or rather (by a [...]) is hurtfull and abhominable; and so is the VVillvvor­ship in this place. The Doctor seemes to place the illness of those bodily exercises, in this; ‘when they are taught as necessary, to the defaming of marriage and meats,’ he means, I suppose, necessary, as commanded by God: But (say I) if they taught them (as they did, some of them) onely as Commands of men, not necessary, no defaming marriage, [Page 44] &c. but as an acceptable worship of God; would the Doctor say, they were not hurt­full, and abhominable, but profitable a little? I think not; or if he doe, he justifies some Pa­pists, who make them a speciall worship of God, not necessary, &c. But we said afore, the words here signifie onely a shew of wis­dome or piety. Then saies hee, the argument will be still of validity, ‘For can any thing be said to have so much as a shew of Wisdom, in respect of VVillworship in it,’ if that Wil­worship passe confessedly, either for foolish, or ‘impious?’ Let him aske all Interpreters, who render the words, ‘a shew of VVisdome in Superstition or affected Religion,’ how this can be: But I cannot but wonder at the Doctors question: For cannot a thing have a shew of wisdome or piety, which is con­fessedly foolish or impious? and if so, may it not be so in respect of the VVillworship in it? The Baalites launcing and cuttiug them­selves in their devotions, had it not (to them at least) a shew of piety, and yet that worship was confessedly impious? say the like of the Papists whipping themselves, and other ridiculous and heathenish pennances; have they not to them and others of their su­perstition, a great shew of wisdome, and pi­ety, and yet to us, are confessedly foolish and impious? Cannot, doth not the doctrine of False teachers hold out a shew of wis­dome [Page 65]and piety, in their worship, and yet to all orthodox known to be foolish and im­pious. Does not on the one side, the Wisdome of God in the Gospell, hold out a shew of foolishnesse to naturall wise men, and yet is the wisdome and power of God, to salvati­on? on the other, does not, is not the wisdom and piety of Hypocrites and Idolaters, fol­ly and impiety to God. But (saies the Dr.) ‘Can any thing be represented to me, as ha­ving so much as a shew of piety, in respect of rage or lust discernible in it?’ This comparison is ill laid; For rage and lust are for kind confessedly wicked things. But wor­ship may be true or false; and so as true wor­ship may have a shew of folly to natural men; so may false (and the refore impious) worship have a shew of wisdome and piety in it, to the same men: And the one, though it have a shew of folly, yet may have none in it, but is the very wisdome of God: So the other, though it have a shew of wisdome or piety in it, yet hath none, but is both folly and impiety. Let me put it a little more home to him: May there not be zeale (which may be nothing but rage, [...] in Saint James) which may have a shew of true zeale, and yet be nothing but rage and mad­nesse? must I needs ‘suppose somewhat really of wisdom or piety, in that passion, or else it cannot have so much as a shew of wis­dome, [Page 66]or piety?’ To conclude may not the Divell himselfe transferre himself into (and so have a shew of) an Angell of light? Vid. Ap­pend. and must I suppose necessarily, that there is some­what really of light or piety in him, or else cannot hee have so much, as a shew of them?

To conclude this argument, let the Doctor note it once for all, that the words are not; ‘Which things have a shew of wisdom and of Willworship, and of Humility and of not sparing the body.’ For then, as wisdome was good, and taken in a good sense, so might the rest be taken; and the fault be, that they had onely an appearance, not the truth or power; but the words are, ‘They have a shew of wisdome, in Willworship, and in Humility, &c.’ And if they were faulty, because they had onely a shew of wisdome, they wil bee more faulty, that they had but a shew of pi­ety, or worship, or Humility. So that, the words, [...], &c. doe no more en­force us to take it in a good sense, than, when we say, ‘Judas made a shew of love to his Master, in his traiterous kisse; and the Pa­pists devotion, in bowing to stocks and Ima­ges.’ In both which sayings, love in the one, and devotion in the others, are taken in a good sense; but the ones traiterous kisse, and others bowing to Images, are not at all taken in any better sense for that shew, or appea­rance [Page 66]of love and devotion; but are rather so much the worse. And this shall suffice for his second reason.

§. 13. ‘A third reason is, because the Greek fathers, though they interpret [...] onely of appearance, as contrary to power and truth, yet they paraphrase Willworship, &c, by words, of Good Savour: [...], &c.’ First this is well that the Greeke Fathers agree with us (or we with them) in exposition of the first words. a shew (not as he, somewhat reall) of wisdome, or pie­ty: Nay they expresly oppose against it, pow­er and truth: and can that which hath nei­ther power nor truth, in the worship of God, be taken in a good sense? And do not the Fathers imply as much: Chrysost. [...]: Hee seemes to be Religious, but is not so: Oecumenious; [...], pretending (as Hy­pocrites) Religion in worship, and is there any gooduesse in Hypocrifie? ‘But the in­terpreter of Clemens Alex. renders the word, in Religion: Why?’ is not Religion it self of various senses? The simple word [...], often signifies false Religion, and superstition, as well as true. But the composi­tion, makes it worse, and alters the sense, because it addes the worke of mans Will to Worship, which is abominable to God: Doe not all Idolaters pretend wisdom, in their In­ventions, [Page 68]Piety in their Devotions? Ps. 106.39 Went a whor [...]ng with itheir own in­ventions. and does not this pretence make it more odions to God, as taking upon them to be wiser than he, and more Devout than he requires? But why did not the Doctor tell us, how the La­tine Fathers, and other later Interpreters render the word? Ambr. Simulatam Religi­onem, Hierom, Superstitionem, Theodoret, (a Greek Father) [...], pro [...]eo quodest proprium decretum introducunt, non legis scopum & institutum sequuntur. Vulgar lati­ne (and all Popish Commentators take it thence) Superstitionem, Salmeron, & Estius, omnem affectatam & voluntariam Religio­nem significat, cum quis fingit sibi cultum ex cerebro suo, volens videri Religiosus. It signifies all affected and voluntary Religion, which a man forges out of his own braine, willing to seem Religious. I spare our owne Divines. In locum. In a word, Estius gives this inter­pretation of the words, out of Augustine and Thomas: ‘VVhich have a shew of wis­dom, not true, but such as is placed in Su­perstition and humility, which is false wisdome.’ I leave all to the Doctors consideration.

§. 14. The fourth reason, because by this ‘way that very obscure place, may be con­veniently understood, which hath posed so many: viz. That such Doctrines are de­structive of Christian Religion in obtrud­ing [Page 69]humane out daded judaicall constitutions, for Divine precepts; as still obliging, and yet in some respects have piety in them, at least a shew of it, to wit, in Willworship,’ &c. To which Interpretation of his, enough hath been spoken before, on Sect. 7. but we adde. First, for my part, I have not observed amongst Interpreters, any such difficulty or obscurity of this text: I dare say, the Doctors exposition makes the greatest obscurity that ever I met with: They generally agree in the sense of the words, taking them in an ill sense; Onely himselfe and some Papists, Bel­larmin, and and some others, take them in a good sense.

2. That such Doctrines as he speakes of, are destructive to Christian Religion; is true, but not such onely; nor are such onely meant in his text, viz. outdated Iudaicall constitu­tions obtruded for Divine precepts, still ob­liging; but all Humane Institutions of worship though never known before, are e­qually destructive to Religion; though they pretend not to be Divine precepts or pre­scriptions: The Apostle therefore brands them as destructive, because they are but Willworship, not because they are outdated, or Iudaicall: And those as well as these, however they may have a shew of wisdome and piety, to carnall hearts, yet to under­standing Christians, have not in any respect, [Page 70] piety in them, but are vaine and sin­full Inventions of men, that is, Willwor­ship.

§. Vide Ap­pend. ad sect 15. 15. ‘A fift reason, because Hesichius renders the word by [...] voluntary Worship, the very notion of [...] the [...], voluntary gifts or offerings; as [...], is [...], &c.’ That he renders the word so, is no advantage to his cause, for the words may both signifie the same thing, viz. Will-devised worship, in an ill sense. And though it be true, that in humane Authors, the derivatives, and com­pounds of this word, do expresse the Free­willingnesse of the person; as [...], &c. yet that will not help the Doctor, Any thing else beside what God hath com­manded. Sect. 16. who doth not understand [...] with respect to the willingnesse of the per­son, in a commanded worship of God; but voluntary Worship, that is, Worship not Commanded by God, but offered to him by the Freewill of man, as wee shall see anon. And it is as true; that though the word bee taken in other Authors for voluntary wor­ship, and be but once used in the Scripture: yet the spirit of God, the Master of all lan­guages, does use words, (whither once or oftner) in a sense clearly different from o­ther Authors, (and I think the Doctor makes use somewhere of such a Cri­ticism) As for instance, the Greeke [Page 71]word [...] in Scripture is taken for a vice, Eph. 5.4. which in Aristotle is used for a virtue. And the word [...], is so taken in the best judgements. Nor is this, the notion of the [...], used by the 72. for Freewill-offerings, voluntary gifts, &c. as shall appeare in a place more conveni­ent.

§. 16.6. ‘Reason it self assures us, that things done in the service of God, are not therefore ill, because they are spontaneous, but on the other side, when a man shall out of a pious affection doe any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particu­lar precept, this action of his, is to be ac­counted so much more commendable and acceptable to God, &c.’ Before wee go any further, we must remember the distinction of voluntary worship, which the Doctor con­founds; voluntary may be applyed to worship in a double sense; First as it is a a modus, or manner of worship; that is, it is willingly performed, and so it is necessary, not arbi­trary, attendant upon worship: or secondly, Voluntari­um cultum, non m [...]n­datum a deo, sed illi oblatum humama voluntate, &c. D. Davent in loc. Deus amat cultorem voluntarium, sed odit cultum voluntarium. Ide. vide plura: as voluntary implyes the efficient cause con­stituting the worship, viz. the Will of man, as contradistinguished to the Will of God. In short, there is a vast difference, betweene [Page 72] voluntary worship, and Willworship; the one presupposes the Worship commanded by God, the other constitutes the worship, out of his own brain. Now its true, Worship of God commanded, is not ill, because it is spontaneous, that is willingly performed, but ill, if it be not spontaneous or voluntary; because in all service, God requires the Will or heart: But in worship devised by man, the Will beares all the blame, and the more vo­luntary, in that sense, the more abhomina­ble: and herein, (contrary to what the Dr. here asserts) ‘the voluntarinesse of it, de­fames the worship, it being the [...], the irregularity of it, and imputable to the action it selfe; Math. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, &c.’ Again, when a man out of pious affection, shall doe any thing beside what God hath commanded (in such worship as is invented by himselfe or other men) this action is to be accounted, so much more (not commandable or acceptable, as the Doctor, but) odious and abhominable to God. But the Doctor addes; ‘there being no universall negative in Scripture, prohi­biting all things and degrees of things, be­sides what are in particular commanded.’ Yes, we say, there is an universall negative prohibition in the Scripture (beside speciall ones) in the second Commandement, for­bidding all things, that is, all worship, and [Page 73]all degrees of that worship, besides what are particularly commanded. Hence it followes, that there is no generall command or doctrine of the Gospell (which is another caution of the Doctors) to which such Willwor­ship can hold conformity. Nor will it salve the matter, which he brings from an Heathen, or the Apocrypha, ‘that piety is one of those virtues, which have such a compass, that the larger they be, they are so much more com­mendable, and the more spontaneous, the more acceptable.’ For this must be meant onely of commanded worship, and the degrees or intention, of the Will in those services: therein, you cannot exceed the generall com­mand, to love the Lord (and so to serve him) with all thy heart and strength; But in Willworship, that is, of mens owne devising, the first step in it, and least degree of it, is far from commendation, or acceptation; because you are so farre from being obliged to to doe it, that you are strictly obliged not to do it.

§. 17. We have done with the first under­taking; wee are coming to his next, to point at the cause of the mistake of the sense of the word; which hee supposes to be.

§. 18. 1. ‘That the vulgar Latin renders it Superstition; annd Calvin and Jerome follow them; whereas the truth is, [...], [Page 74] is the word for Superstition: and [...] signifies it no more than [...], which is used in a good sense.’ But might not a man say as much for [...] it self, as the Doctor saies for [...], and bring the Doctor himself for his vouch­er? Does not hee tell us, in his other Tract, that [...] sometimes is taken in a good sense. Of Super­stition. Sect. 22. ‘For Religion or worship of God without any marke set upon it of true or false, and rendred by Superstition, Religi­on, &c.’ It seemes then, [...], and Superstitio are both taken in a good sense, sometimes for Religion, and in a bad sense o­ther times, and so [...], and they a­gree in an ill sense sometimes, and this helps not at all; to vindicate the word.

Secondly, [...] it selfe is taken some­times in an ill sense, (as the Doctor knowes) as well as a good; why then may they not both equally signifie Superstition? especially when applyed to false or mendevised worship.

3. The wor­shipers of Angells cannot be freed from the crime of Super­stition saies he. Superstition or Will-worship, is more generall than [...], thats but one species of Superstition, if taken (as the word imports) for Daemonum cultus; But all false worship is Superstition: and the rather, be­cause it is Spontaneous, voluntary, that is, Will-devised Worship. Lets try the next.

§. 19. ‘Another reason is, that among the Jewes, all was to be done according to the pattern in the Mount: so some have resolved, that no rite or circumstance, no degree of worship may be used in the Christian Church, but what hath Christs example or particular precept to authorize it, &c.’ But the Doctor much mistakes the question himselfe, while hee is labouring to shew others mistakes.

For 1. it is not about a rite or circum­stance or degree of worship commanded, (as Time, Place, Gesture, not prescribed) but of the Worship it self; and herein we say we are equal with the Jewes, and all the people of the world; we may not vary from the pre­scription on the mount, in the second Com­mandement, to constitute any part of wor­ship; but what wee have the authority of Christ for, in the new Testament. And we do say, and that truly, ‘that what ever wor­ship is not commanded by Christ, or justi­fied by his example, is censurable under the title of Willworship, though otherwise in respect of the matter of it, it would not be censurable.’ And we have for our ground, both the second Commandement in the old, and this text (beside others) in the New Testament to justifie our assertion.

2. That saying of the Doctor, ‘We may justly conclude those actions justifiable, [Page 76]because not prohibited, and not onely so, but also acceptable and the more ac­ceptable for the voluntarinesse, &c.’ is most unsound; For in worship, it will not justifie a man, that it is not prohibited (in particular) but rather, it is condemned, be­cause it is not commanded; though all VVill­worship (in our sense) is prohibited, as wee often said. As for his gloss upon the words of Photius, I say little; I onely note, that he seemes to make it a fault, to sit at the read­ding of the Gospell, which the Ecclesiastical Canons did not command; and yet makes it no fault, to adde a VVillworship of a mans own, which [...], the Divine lawdoth forbid.

§. 20. ‘A third ground of the abuse of the word, is the affinity of the 18 verse of this Chapter; and so the VVilworship here, is guilty of all the same charges, &c.’ The distance pretended between them, is so little, that they may easily be reconciled; That re­specting a new devised worship onely, and this the reviving of an old & outdated worship, as we shall see. I onely observe what Maimoni­des observed, ‘That the errour that brought the greatest part of Idolatry into the world, was, that men conceived and taught, that vain worships and superstitions, were the will and pleasure of God;’ that is, pleasing and acceptable unto God. This is exem­plified aboundantly in the Church of Rome, [Page 77]whose Superstitions are grounded upon this, that they are very pleasing to God; let the Dr. take heed, he do not justifie, or imitate them.

21. But he goes about to make good this distance between the verses; onely he forbears not, to weaken his following proofes by the Interpretation of Clem. Alex. who com­pounding these verses, reads thus. ‘Let no man beguile you of your reward in VVill­worship of Humility,’ and in neglecting of the body, &c. and makes it very certaine, that he understood them both as one, and ve­ry suspicious, that they are at no such dist­ance, as the Doctor pretends.

§. 22. You must (saies he) observe these two things. 1. ‘That the words are not in the Originall [...], but [...], &c. Now the word [...] hath with the 70. a sense, which antient writers have not taken no­tice of.’ viz. pleasing himselfe in worshiping ‘of Angells, or proud of a feigned humili­ty as Hierome, &c.’ But this comes to no­thing; for 1. the sense is the same, whither the words be joyned, or parted: a voluntary humility, as the ground of that worship of Angells: They (good men) were so modest and humble, they would not rush upon God immediately (though he Command it, and so it was grosse pride, masked with hu­mility) but they would go by Angells, as [Page 78]Media tours: Is not this the very plea of Pa­pists at this day, for their, Invocation of An­gells and Saints?

2. Take [...] asunder, and for pleasing or de­lighting, In iis quae non vidit [...] festuosus incedens. Eras. in v. 18. Qui jussa tantum fa­cit nihil agit non vulgare qui tran­scendit prae­cepta, hic Angelus est &c. hic Deum sibi obaeratum facit D. Davent in loc. Vid. Ap­pend. s. 23. or proud of a feigned Humility: Did not these false teachers do the same? were they not much pleased, delighted, proud of this new-old-revived worship, as applauding their own wisdome in the Invention of this worship, and their Humility, and devotion, in their abstinence from such meats, &c. Did not Jeroboam (think you) much please himself, and pride himself, in his politick Re­ligion of the Golden Calves? Are not all Su­perstitious and Idolatrous worshipers, delight­ed with their VVillworship, especially the first Devisers of it? insulting not over others onely, as more Religions then they. ‘Lo, I thank thee, I am not as other men, &c. I fast twice a weeke, &c.’ But also over God himself, as making him beholden to them, by going beyond what he commands?

3. Why may not [...] in Composi­tion, signifie the same with [...], asunder? self-pleasing worship or Religion; His Clemens, joynes them together, [...]; will worship of Hu­mility. That is observable, which Estius notes, on the place, the 18. verse; that [...] is referred to [...] also; volens in humili­tate, i. affectans humilitatem, & volens in Re­ligione [Page 79]Angelorum, 1. affectans, &c. a voluntary humility, that is, affecting humility and a voluntary worshiping of Angells, that is, af­fecting that worship: For this the Apostle signifies, in the 23. ver. by composition of the words, in [...]: And it is as if hee had said, let no man beguile you, [...]: In Will-humility and willworship of Angells; which the Doctor allowes us to call, ‘Willworship and an unlawfull thing, a mis­taken impious Humility,’ Sect. 23. and Sect. 20. That crime of Superstition. And so in this ver. 23. wee may apply [...], to all the 3. Willworship, Estius in loc. Wil-Humility and Wil­punishing of the body: And tis very reasona­ble ro conceive, that though it was praeter u­sum Greci sermonis, so to place the word [...], yet the Spirit of God so directed Saint Paul; to seperate the words in the 18. verse, and to joyne them in the 23. on purpose, that hee might teach us, not onely (what Estius observes) that [...] in the 18. ver. was to be referred to [...] also; but to teach us also, how to understand [...] in the 23. ver. viz. for Worship affected, and sinfull; and humility affected, &c. as well as in the 18. verse:: that is, in the Doctors own words, ‘unlawfull, Supersti­tions, impious, worship and Humility.’

§. 23. But he addes the second observati­on, [Page 80] ‘The will or delight in the 18. ver. is fastned on unlawfull things, viz. worshiping of Angels, &c. including an impious mis­taken kind of Humility, (call this wil worship, or what you please) yet is it true still, that voluntary worship, where the matter is perfectly lawfull, not forbidden, nay,’ approved by a generall command, is far enough from having any tincture of ill in it, But 1. its true, the matter of these two worships differ, considered in themselves, but they differ not at all, in the unlawfullness, one being more expressely forbidden in the first Com­mandement, the other by consequence, or more generally in the second. It is no more lawful, to revive a Worship, which God hath laid aside, than it is to begin a worship, which God never Commanded or forbad: 2. The matter of this worship in the 23. verse, was about meats which God had given precepts of before, but now voided: the matter was in it selfe lawfull: they did but worship God in a lawfull matter, why doth the Apostle blame them for this? (as he doth) if the Doctors assertion be true, ‘That voluntary worship, where the matter is lawfull, is far enough from any tincture of ill?’ It will not help him to say, ‘if not forbidden, nay approved by a generall precept,’ for let the matter be never so lawfull, yet in Willworship it cannot have any generall precept to ap­prove [Page 81]it, Being the willing of that, which God for­bids: his own words in this sect. but rather hath generall and parti­cular precepts to forbid and condemn it. The Doctor still deludes us, by the sense of volun­tary worship; which if he take for willing­ness in commanded worship, wee shall not contend with him; but if for worship in­vented and constituted by the will of man, (as he does) not onely we, but God himself observes it.

§. 24. ‘The 4. occasion of the mistake, he saies, is the use the word [...], in Epiphanius, attributed to the Pharises.’ This is generally taken in an ill notion, yet finds a patron of the Doctor, to defend, or palliate it: I shall not much labour about it; but truly, if [...] heare so ill, the addition of [...] superfluous, to it, will make it here worse. Lets hear what he saies for it.

§. 25.1. ‘If it were a denotation of some ill, it would not prejudice [...], for the addition in the middle, noting Super­fluity, (perhaps, some unlawfull, or luxuri­ant matter, Supervaca­neam reli­gionem sponte assumptum, sive af­fectatam si [...] Estius in ver. 18 taken into that worship either prohibited object, or noxious, at least bur­thenous ceremonies in number or quality) might turn that into evill, which the vo­luntariness, or uncommandednesse of them, were not able to do.’ To this I say; The su­perfluity of them consisted not onely, in the number, burthen, quality, of them; but even [Page 82]in the voluntary constitution of them, as worship of God; For so our Saviour charges them, "In vain do they worship me, &c. and thats Superfluous worship: And the un­commandednesse (if there were nothing else) in a matter of worship, turnes them into ill, and abhominable. For this is the summe of the second Commandement, ‘God must be worshiped, with his own prescribed worship;’ and consequently, all uncommanded wor­ship is superfluous, vain and sinfull; as hath oft been said.

§. 26. "But secondly he saies, ‘I cannot acknowledge that word is taken by Epi­phan: in an ill sense: though that was the Interpretation of their name; they might be ill men, yet the name might not signifie any ill thing.’ &c. who would think the Pharisees should find an advocate, being such notorious Hypocrites? The very name of their Religion, argues them proud, vain, superfluous worshipers, both for number, and burthen of their ridiculous ceremonies, and all of their own devising, as parts of wor­ship; and yet the word cannot be yeelded to be taken in an ill notion: Epiphan: is descri­bing the Heresie of the Pharisees (awing others) and calls it [...], as offending, both in Willworship of their owne devising, and also in the abundance and su­perfluity of them; and yet the word hath no [Page 83]ill notion: let him enjoy his own sense of it: Sure, our Saviour would not have condem­ned them so oft, so sharply, for both these, if the words might have had a good sense or notion.

§. 27. ‘The truth is, the main crime of the Pharisees, was their censorious proud despi­sing of other men, whom they thought not so godly as themselves.’ This is another of the Doctors mistakes. Their main crime was that, which was the occasion of that despi­sing of other men, Math. 23. which was their Hypocri­sie, which was cloaked with their mancle of Devotion, in the Superfluity and Supereroga­tion of their Traditions, and Willworship, which making them proud (as all Willwor­shipers are, with a shew of wisdom) they de­spised others, whom they thought lesse god­ly than themselves: ‘Luke 18. 1. trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and despised others.’ Their strictnesse in some particulars, neglected by others, was not so much in moralls, as in ceremonialls of their own devising, in washings and Fastings, and placing the worship of God in them: as Pa­pists do, and therefore the Doctor mistakes, when he applies that Scripture to these, "these things ought you to have done, for there it meant of things commanded by God; but then their fault was, that they were exact in the least commands, and loose [Page 84]in far greater matters: Or if they ought to have done their own Traditions, why does our Saviour so bewoe them, so often, for do­ing of them? And yet the Doctor saies, ‘Their strictnesse in Religion, is far from being it self any ill character or blemish upon their voluntary religious performan­ces, wherein their superlative strictnesse did consist:’ Their Superlative strictnesse consisted chiefly in the observation of their own Traditions, even to the avoiding of the Commandements of God by them, Mat. 15, 6. and does this leave no blemish upon them? I say no more, let him consider it.

§. 28. His third answer for the Pharisees is; ‘That the Originall of them, was from the Hasidaei, so called for their excess of charity, [...] and voluntary performances above what the Law required of them, and so differed from the Karraim, who did that onely which was commanded by the Law,’ &c. Its likely to be so: But when he saies, these were called [...], which he renders, ‘such as in their obedience per­formed voluntarily some things, which the Law required not, and so differed from the Karaei.’ I know not what he means: for the word signifies onely, such as were devoted vo­luntarily, or (as our English Translation reads it) wellminded to the Law that is the Law of God: But I think his intention is, to [Page 85]fetch hence a colour for the Pharisees and his own voluntary worship: whereas the word [...] signifies onely the freenesse or will­ingnesse of the Soul, in the prescribed wor­ship of God: For all was to be voluntary, and willing service; and Gods people, a wil­ling people. Ps. 110, Populus volunta tum. Now in this sense the Karaej, were also [...] wellminded, or voluntarily devoted to the Law: But this word, differs much from [...], a will-worshiper, which signifies rather (as wee have proved) a Deviser of worship, than one voluntary in gods prescribed worship: Or if he take [...], for those Freewill offerings al­lowed in the Law, as the 70. render the word: yet in this sense, the Karaej, I doubt not; were as well devoted, and as wellminded to the Law, as the Hasidaej: The difference then be­tween them, was rather in this, that the one, in their worship, kept close to the Rules of the Law; the others would Supererogate and devise worship, above or beside the Law: and so the Doctor, I think, intends it; Now I beleeve, our Saviour would not have bla­med the Pharisees for their Freewill offe­rings, or voluntary performances in that sense, because the Law allowed and appro­ved them: but he blames them, for their Tra­ditions, their voluntary worship devised by themselves; which the Doctor calls, their voluntary performances above the Law. And [Page 86]therefore, however Scaliger may justifie the Karaei for doing onely what was commanded of them. He can never justifie the Hasidaei for doing more (in the worship of God) than was commanded them, unlesse he will con­demn our Saviour for condemning them: For the rest of the discourse in this Section, I shall onely note the progresse of Willwor­ship. At first the Hasidaei, (afterwards Pharisees) were onely men devoted, or well minded to the Law, it seemes, in words of Charity; Afterwards, they (finding ap­planse from men) they began to perform some voluntary worship, which the Law required not. Then at last, their [...] (as Scali­ger saies) came to be [...], their voluntary worship came to be necessary, and formed into precepts; Then from pious men (The sidem) they became Dogmatizers, laying ob­ligations upon all to do as they did; and not being obeyed, discriminated themselves from all others, as the onely obedient servants of God; and so called themselves Pharisees, &c. The application is very easie, and very ob­servable in the new Pharisees of Rome, Testivalls of the Church, sect. 16. ad fin. and all Superstitious Willworshipers, as shall be ex­emplified in Hypothesi, in another place. Yet the Doctor thinks by this meanes to vindi­cate the word [...], from any ill sense; as they that offended not in the Wil­worship, but in Dogmatizing; which yet is [Page 87]not imported in the word; and he does in­deed condemn it; ‘we may justifie the [...], but not the [...]:’ But I desire to know whether Will­worship, I mean, devised worship, in any one man, be not sinfull, though he never come to Dogmatize, or lay obligations upon others, to do as he does? But the mischiefe is, that Willworship, if not ever, yet common­ly, ends in Dogmatizing: especially in men, of place, and piety, and learning, as is evi­dent in the Histories of the Church, in all a­ges and places.

§. 29, And now wee are come to the third part of his undertaking, ‘concerning those voluntary oblations under the Law,’ to which he hath often paralelled his voluntary Worship, by him understood in this text, sect. 9. &c. wherein he propounds three observati­ons.

But before we deale with those observati­ons in particular, we shall lay down the Na­ture of a Freewill-offering, and shew where­in the Formality of it did consist, which the Doctor hath neglected to doe. A Freewill-offering may be so called, two waies.

1. In regard of the Freewillingnesse of the mind of the offerer; Exod. 35.29. ‘every man and woman brought a willing offering, whom their heart made willing to bring it,’ [Page 88]&c. But this Willingnesse of the person, was required, in the most necessary commanded worship, yea every act of obedience to God, in both Tables, is to be done most willingly, by that generall Law, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy Heart, &c.’ And in this sense, the Offering or worship is presup­posed to be commanded by God: This not here meant.

2. With respect to some Liberty or free choice, De Repub. Habr. l. 4. c. 17: left to the Will of the offerer, as standing in contradiction to such offerings or worship, as they were bound to, either by Law, or vow, as Sigonius well observes. (Though there was not so great a difference between a vow, and a Freewilloffering, but that, an offering by vow, might be called a Freewilloffering, in this sense, that it was free to vow, See Ain­sw. in Le­vit. 7.16. or not to vow; though it was not free to pay, or not to pay it; And the same may be said of a Freewilloffering that it was not free t [...] offer it or not, when once it was promised, though it was free to promise or not to promise it: The difference seemes onely graduall, a vow being a more solemne promise, and a Freewilloffering, voluntari­ly promised, (as the Hebrewes expresse it) being a lesse solemn vow. But this by the way) The Libertie left to the offerer, was of 2, sorts.

[Page 89]1. Libertas specificationis (as they call it) when it was left to his choice, what he would offer of severall things allowed by the Law: Not an unlimited liberty, to offer what kind of things he would, a Bear, or a Lyon, of beasts, or a Vulture or Eagle of Fowles; But onely some one or other of those three kinds of beasts. Beeves, Goates, Sheep, Ainsw. on Levit. 1.2. or of those two kinde of fowles prescribed by the Law, Pigeons, or Turtles: (which choice, was al­lowed in other sorts of offerings, as well as, in those that were properly called Freewilloffe­rings, which is observable.) And this Liber­ty was not (I say) unbounded, but much li­mited, as in these particulars.

1. It was not left free to any man, in the least kind, to appoint the kind of his own offering, not appointed by God; but to chuse amongst things instituted by God, that which did best agree, with his own condi­tion, and ability: So that God, it seemes, had respect to the severall abilities of men; some were rich, and able to offer a greater sacrifice; a Sheep, or a Goat, or a Bullock: others were poor, and had not any of those, and then allowed to offer a pair of Pidgeons, &c. which is the expresse reason, of that Law, Levit. 12.6.8. A lamb was required for an offering for a womans Purification, with one Pigeon, or a Turtle dove: But if not able to bring a Lamb, then two Turtles, [Page 90]or two Pigeons: To teach us, that if there be a willing mind, it is accepted according to what he hath, not what he hath not. The widowes two mites accepted, &c.

2. There was a generall Law, that the Freest offerings, were to be, according to the measure of Gods blessing, Deut, 16.10. whence it had been a sinne for any Israelite, whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a pair of Pigeons instead of a Bullock, upon his own meer pleasure. And this law, is renewed in the Gospell, Act. 11: 19. See sect. 32. 1 Cor. 16.2. ‘Let every man lay by him in store, as God hath pros­pered him, viz. for the poor.’

3. Where the choice was allowed, and taken, as of a Goat, or a Sheep, &c. that choice was no formall worship; but a circum­stance in a commanded worship.

4. It had not been lawfull in that choice, for the Priests to require, or them to offer necessarily one of them, as a more speciall worship, than the other: e. g. when liberty was left, to offer a Sheep or a Goat; a Pigeon or a Turtle dove, &c. to make it necessary to offer a Sheep, and unlawfull to offer a Goat, &c. had been plain Willworship; So that here is little liberty left to man, to ap­point a worship of Ged, which he commanded not; and the Formality of a Freewill offering, did not consist in that.

5. In that liberty of choice, yet God gave [Page 91] rules and directions, how they should be or­dered, Levit. 22.20. not maimed or ble­mished, &c. And that of the first kind of li­berty; there is another.

2. Libertas exercitij; when it was left free, in some cases, for a man to offer, or not to offer; beyond what was positively required by the Law: If thou wilt offer a Nedabah, a Freewilloffering, &c. And herein onely, or chiefly stands the Formality of a Freewill­offering, as contradistinguished to those offe­rings which were commanded by the Law: and the Leviticallnesse or Ceremoniality of them, seems to lie here, whereby they are now abolished: God did than by speciall allow­ance, give liberty for Freewilofferings, not onely in regard of the Specification of the offering, of this or that kind, but also the Li­berty of exercise, to offer or not to offer, ex­cepting in cases commanded: If they offered not, they did not sin, and if they offered, it was the more accepted. And of this kind of Freewillofferings the Doctor intends his dis­course; when he paralells his voluntary obla­tions with those of the Law, and calls them voluntary worship, not commanded by God, and yet accepted by him; as shall appear in considering his three observations, beginning at sect. 29.

1. ‘That they were a part of the worship and service of God, when they were per­formed, [Page 92]and therefore avowed by those ge­nerall precepts, which respect that worship of his.’ To which we say, 1. That they were parts of the worship of God, in those times, is true, not (or not onely) because they were avowed by the generall precepts, which re­spected that worship; but rather, because they were allowed by speciall Proviso's of God himself. For, I aske; If God had not decla­red his allowance (befides his directions and regulations) of them, whither it had beene lawfull for the Jewes, to have offered them or no? I believe not, as shall be shewed anon: 2. I desire it may be observed, that those voluntary oblations, were a part of Gods worship: so, by proportion, must his volun­luntary oblations in the Gospell, be account­ed a part of worship, not rites, or degrees, or circumstances of worship: Let it be remem­bred against anon.

2. ‘That they were not particularly com­manded, by any particular command of Gods Law, but were left to every mans li­berty (except in case of a vow, which yet it was free for him not to make) and so were spontaneous, not necessary.’ This is also true in part, they had no particular com­mand, but they had a speciall allowance of God, which was as good, and aequivalent to a command, though not to necessitate the do­ing, yet to authorize them being done: o­therwise [Page 93]men were at libertie; But why doth, he except a vow? I conceive, because if a man had vowed, it was now necessary for him to perform it; but so, if he had devoted a freewill offering, it was not free for him, to withold it: There is a Law, Levit. 27.13. that if hee would offer to change his oblation, hee must adde a sift part more to it.

3. ‘There is a Law, Levit. 22.20. not to offer them mained, or blemished, whence appeares they were voluntary, and yet allow­ed and accepted.’ They were to be offered, because allowed, and because allowed, therefore accepted, not because they were vo­luntary onely. Bur what will the Doctor in­ferre from all this? ‘That he cannot see, why there may not be somewhat in Christianity, of the same constitution also, voluntary, and not particularly imposed, and yet allowed by, and acceptable to God.’ This inference, I fear, hath toomuch of the [...] spoken of in the text, a shew of Wisdom, but neither sub­stance, power, nor truth, in it: For this plau­sible argument hath deceived Papists, into an [...], an abundant superflui­ty of willworship, it was so in the old Testt: therfore it may be so in the New: There was an High Priest over all, ergo there must be an universal B. now: They had their sacrifices then, so must the Church now; In a word, thus Bellarm argues, in a case near ours, if [Page 94]not the same; ‘vowes and freewiliofferings were part of the worship of God then, therefore they are so now:’ And this seemes reasonable to the Doctor in the present case: ‘He cannot see, but there may be somewhat of the same constitution now, Chamier T. 3. l. 20.7. c. 5. s. 25.754. Chemint. Exod. A. 3. p. 50. &c.’ When as Divines resolve against them, ‘that the wor­ship of God then, was far different from the Worship of the Gospell;’ 1. And conclude the contrary, it rather followes, they are not parts of worship now; because that Levitical worship is abolished, therefore we must have a certain and special word in the new Testa­ment, to make any thing a part of worship, whence his second inference is like the for­mer; ‘He cannot see, why he that doth any such thing, may not be called [...], and the oblation or action it selfe, [...].’ He may, we grant, be so called, a Will-worshiper, not a God-worshiper; and the oblation, Willworship (in an ill sense) not a worship of God; as wanting Truth, com­mand, or allowance of the New Testament, which those had in the Old: Yet, wee shall not stick to grant, ‘that whatsoever may, by the Doctrine of the Gospell, appeare to be acceptable to Christ, and yet is not com­manded, by any particular command; or which is commanded for the act, but not for the specification of it, to time, or place, or degree.’ For this first is certain, that no wor­ship [Page 95](marke that, wee speake of Worship) is acceptable to Christ, which he hath not com­manded; either in particular, or by general al­lowance. 2. Our question is, not about cir­cumstances, of time, place, or degree, of worship commanded; but about voluntary worship (as he calls it Willworship, (as wee) devised by men themselves. Now his Instan­ces will be easily answered.

§. 30. ‘God commanded not David to build him a Temple, nor to make tender of that service, 2 Sam. 7.5. Yet Davids in­tention in that design, though exceeding Gods Command, is very acceptable to God;’ 1 King. 8.18. This is one of Bellarmines argu­ments, for their Religious vowes; and its ful­ly answered by learned Chamier thus: 1. Vbi super. This was in the time of the Law or before Christ; but the times of the Gospell give no such al­lowance; Freewill-offerings were then allow­ed, it appeares not, they are so now: 2. God doth not absolutely deny, that he had Com­manded, but sayes, he had not Commanded it to David, or any before him, not because he would not have it done, but because not yet, and therefore foretels that Solomon should build it. 3. The house that David would build, was not to be a part of worship properly, but by accident, as it serves for the Commodity and convenience of the worship­ers: no more than the House of Obededom, [Page 96]or the place where David setled the Arke and Tabernacle before, was a part of worship, or our Churches now; God had said by Moses, that hee would chuse a place for himselfe to dwell in; and then, when he had chosen and sanctified it, it was a part of that legall wor­ship: David had read this, and thought, that time was now at hand, he therefore prepares materialls for the House; but could not make it a part of worship, without Gods command: and then it is nothing to our present question. It was onely a circumstance of worship, not any part of worship.

2. The instance of Saint Paul, ‘not ta­king hire of the Corinthians, when hee might, and calling it matter of boasting, &c.’ is as little to the purpose, if not lesse; for it is not in a matter of Worship, ‘but an acti­on of common life (as himself speakes) yet it is also a mistake,’ to call it a [...] a free will offering, when it was a due debt: For so Chamier answers Bellarm. objecting this place for works of counsails, as they call them: And he proves it by a distinstion, that he did that which was above or beside the gene­rall command, or allowance, ‘That they that preacht the Gospell should live of the Gospell,’ but not above what he was bound to doe, by a speciall call, from the circumstance of time and place: for he was bound, not onely to Preach the Gospell, but [Page 97]also to take heed that he did nothing to hin­der the successe: which he confirms from the words of the Apostle there, 1 Cor. 9.18. ‘That I make the Gospell of Christ with­out charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospell.’ But to abuse his power, is to sin: which he had done, if he had received his hire to the hindering of the Gospell. His glorying and boasting therefore, was, in re­spect to the generall command, not to the speciall occasion: It was therefore no Free­will offering.

§. 31. The like may be answered for the other instance: ‘He might (saies he) have abstained from going up to Jerusalem, Act. 21. a Prophet told him, that bonds ex­pected him there, ver. 11. and in that case to flye was justifiable, by Math 10.23. yet Paul would needs go up, ver. 13. that was his [...] again.’ Some answer, this was an Instinct or Heroicall motion of the Spirit, (which the Doctor discourses against, Sect. 35. &c.) but we need not that help, It is e­nough to answer as before; By the generall allowance; Paul might have fled, (for there is no command, whereby Preachers are bound, to be bound, beaten, stoned) but yet, if he should have refused to suffer with the retarding of the Gospell, he had surely sin­ned, and so, this was no Freewilloffering, neither.

§. 32. The next of works of mercy, ‘that though they be commanded in generall, yet the quantum, how much every rich man should set apart, is not defined, &c.’ May be answered by what is said afore in part, viz. that it is not the question, which is, of wor­ship, not of actions of civill life: But wee adde;

1. It may be said, that the question is not of the degree of an Act of obedience, com­manded, as Almsegiving is, but of the Act it self, if not commanded now allowed in spe­ciall, or in generall.

2. Sect. 42. see pract. catech. p. 141. 2. Edit. The Doctor himself confesses ‘its possi­ble for a man to offend (in charity) either in too prodigall a giving, against prudence, or in too parsimonious sparing, against pie­tie.’ But then, may it not be said, there is some midle rule, that binds men, from both the excess and the defect? which if it be re­solved on, there is a debt, and no [...] no Freewill offering: Besides, in his section, the Doctor saies, ‘that there was a proportion, among the Jewes, which they were obliged to, which was called their Righteousnesse, which performed, satisfied the obligation of the Law, and that which exceeded, was a­bundance or excellency of goodness, or mer­cy.’ True, there was a proportion set, by a speciall Law, (least men should give no­thing) but there was also a generall Law, to [Page 99]give according to Gods prospering of them, See practic. Catech. 2. Edit. Deut. 16.10.17. and their ability; as 1 Cor. 16.2. cited by the Doctor, as an apointment of Saint Paul, and so obliging, to which, if we adde, the cir­cumstance of time and place, and persons, in regard of Necessities of the poore; there will be little cause to think or boast of a [...], a Freewill offering, but it may prove a due debt, and, and sin, if it be not done.

§. 33, 34. As for his Instance of prayer, for the manner, Orall, or mentall, publick or private; the frequencie, &c. we answer ve­ry briefly; Prayer is no doubt a part of wor­ship, commanded by God, and therefore is so far, to the question; but as for the manner, Orall, or Mentall, with such and such gestures of body; for time when, how oft, &c. (except any of these be by God himself commanded in speciall;) they are not to be accounted properly worship, but circum­stances, Rites, &c. and Worship, left to the liberty of every person; and so a­gaine, though they be Free, yet are not parts of worship: For these being helps un­to worship, or testifications of inward or out­ward worship, if a man should make any one way necessary, or any one of them, more holy and Religious, in themselves, or more effi­cacious, to himself, or more acceptable to God; no doubt it would be in him, Will­worship; because God hath left them free and [Page 100]indifferent; and nothing makes them worship but Gods Command: Now the Doctor must again be remembred, that he defends volun­tary worship; not voluntariness in prescribed worship (which is necessary as we have a­gain said) but worship devised by the wit, or constituted by the Wil of man; and not commanded by God. Which if we will main­tain to be lawfull, and place the worship of God in them, or pleasing of God by them; I know not, how he will avoide compliance with Papists; who have made many worships of God, which he never commanded, as caeli­bate or single life; pennances, pilgrimages, set houres of prayer, and innumerable such things, and are condemned by our Divines, as the greatest Willworshipers, and Idolaters, in the world.

And whereas the Doctor saies, Sect. 34. concerning frequent prayer (as 7. times a day, &c.) ‘The matter of it is commanded, to wit, prayer, but not the frequent reiterating of it daily.’ If he mean it, of the particular number, of seaven times a day, its true: but if in generall, of frequent prayer, and that eve­ry day, it is against the very scope of the text, pray continually: and so will prove a debt, and not a [...] Freewill offering. Himselfe seemes to expound it, by twice a day, morning and evening, at least, and saies that ‘a Christian now may do well to [Page 101]improve it in publick and private to six or seaven times a day.’ But I think, the sense of the precept, pray continually, hath respect to the frequent necessities and occasions of men, every day, and binds men to pray so oft as need shall be, with ejaculatory pray­er at least; and then again, it is a debt, and no [...], Nedabah, no voluntary obla­tion.

§. 39. We wave the 4. following Sections, after the 34. because wee wave that answer, which in them, the Doctor disputes against, But we cannot let passe, what he addes about the difference, between a Precept, and grace, which he makes to be very great.

1. ‘In that the precept belongs to all, the grace to none but him that hath it (and not obliging him neither, unless the matter of it, be sub praecepto all ready, and he ob­liged to it, by some other command.’) The difference between a Precept, and a Grace, is granted; but that a Grace should not ob­lige, unlesse the matter be commanded him, by some other command, is not true. For Grace given, being a Talent, is given on purpose to improve, as well as a precept; This is clear as in 1 Cor. 12.7. ‘The manifesta­tion of the Spirit, is given to every one, to profit withall, and in 1 Pet. 5.10.’ So in the Parable of the Talents, the scope whereof is, ‘That whatever Talent any man is be-trusted [Page 102]with, the intention of the Doner is, that he should improve it, to his advan­tage,’ though he lay no command particu­larly upon him: And the not using of it, is punished severely: Take him, and cast him, &c. for hee acknowledgeth his Lord did ex­pect the improvement; I knew, &c. whats the second difference?

2. ‘Because it is the design of a precept, to lay an obligation, and that sub periculo a­nimae, if not obeyed; but of grace not so, but onely to strengthen and incline, which he that makes use of, as he should, is promised a reward,’ &c. This is strange Divinity: Does God give Grace onely to strengthen and incline, and leave men free to use it, or not use it? so grace might be given in vaine: But does not Saint Math. say, ‘Take him and cast him into utter darknesse,’ for not using his Talent? and is he not threatned with loss of his Talent, for not using it? and is not that a punishment for some sin? yes, ‘but its clear by Saint Luke, 19.13. that there was a precept of occupying; to which the punishment was apportioned,’ True, but had here been no such particular precept, yet the Gift it self implyed that duty of imployment, and therefore Mathew leaves that out; And there he acknowledges presently, ‘I ac­knowledge, that the bringing God no re­return of all his grace, is a great and a [Page 103]damning sin.’ Thats true, say I, when he gives any grace, (though he say nothing) even by the Law of Creation, whereby the rationall Creature is bound to be subservient to the glory of his Creator: But this last grant, hee in a manner, takes away againe in the next words; ‘But then, that comes not home, to to prove it a sinne, to omit the doing of any one particular, in that degree, which Gods grace enables me to doe; there being no ob­ligation ad semper, or ad gradum; to doe it alwaies, or in such a degree.’ But surely, as grace it self, so any measure or degree of grace (being a Talent also) requires a pro­portionable return, to that degree.

The Lord, in the parable expected an in­crease of of one Talent, for his one Talent, as well as two, for two, and five for five; and he was punished as well for not improving his one, to two, as for bringing in no increase; And if he that had received five Talents, had brought in the increase but of two, I believe he had heard of it from his Lord, and beene Chidden, if not punished for it. Though it be true also, that there is no Obligation ad semper, yet semper, as opportunity is offered; Gal. 6.10. As, as long, as much, while wee have opportunity, lets do good, &c. and so the degree of the grace, binds to a graduall improvement: ‘To whom more is given, of him more is required,’ is expresse Scripture; [Page 104]And this expression of the Doctor, ‘that there is onely an obligation ad speciem, not ad gradum, that is, that the thing be done,’ for kind, not to the degree of Grace re­ceived Savours too much of the Romish gloss, to say no more.

§. 40.41. Object. Prudence will require us to do that which is fittest to be done, and so nothing is free, &c. He answers, ‘That e­very man is not bound under pain of sin, to be prudent, or pious, or mercifull, in such a degree,’ &c. Truely every man is bound to be prudent, to that degree of prudence; which he lost by sin; and every man is bound to be pious, in the highest degree; the Law requires perfection of holinesse, (say we) and the Gospell requires yet Greater per­fection, (saies he; pract. catech. 2^d. Edit. p. 94, 95.) and every man is bound to be mercifull to his ability, as our Heavenly Fa­ther is mercifull, (which sure is the highest degree) though every man be not bound to the same degree, of mercy, with other men; because every man hath not, either the same measure, of abilities, or the same opportuni­ties. But these supposed, as a man in extream need, and my abilities considered, I am bound to give so much as will supply his neede; and to give lesse, were neither, pru­dent, nor pious, what ever it were to give more

§. 42. And here he confesses, ‘Its possible to offend against prudence in too prodigall a giving, and in too parsimonious, against piety;’ but yet would evade the decision of the just proportion, two wayes.

1. ‘The possibilitie and danger of such faults in the extreames, proves not the un­lawfulness or necessitie of any other degree within those extreams, but allows a lati­tude, within which a man may be more or lesse mercifull still, and yet prudent too.’ To which I say, Virtue (and Charity is such a virtue) consists in a middle point between two extreames; therefore, if it swerve from that point to either extreame, it is more or lesse a fault, though not observed, perhaps not ob­servable by men, yet justly punishable, by a righteous God. And in strict and rigorous Justice, in such deviations, a man will bee found neither mercifull, nor prudent, but hee sayes,

2. ‘Though prudential considerations doe direct, yet do they not alwaies command, or lay obligations upon us, and therefore still compatible with voluntary oblations.’ Yes, Prudence it self being a virtue, in our created nature; then certainly it commanded, and ob­liged to do what was fittest; and so it doth still; that what is short of the Rule, by our imprudence, is a fault, though pardonable by Grace.

Sect. 43.44. Another objection he starts, from hence. ‘That prudence, knowing the greatest perfection, to be most gloriously re­warded, would advise and bind a man to a­spire to perfection, and not to content him­self with any thing but the best.’ This seems at first sight, to touch upon the mercenarie, or meritorious way of Romanists; and we should not have framed such an objection: For there being a two-fold perfection, the one of Grace, or holinesse, the other of Glory; true Prudence looks first at the perfection of Holi­nesse, and by the by, or secondarily at the per­fection of Glory: leaving that to God; though God is pleased to give us this help to provoke us to perfection of holiness. Now when pru­dence looks first and primarily at perfection of Glory, it seems misplaced. For true Prudence should first look at the command of God, and the beauty of Holinesse, and should advise us, to seek that first, and for it selfe: Not to look at Glory, to make us Holy, but at Holi­ness to make us glorious: And this is true prudence indeed, which advises a man to doe the best to arrive at the perfection of Grace, upon the command of God, &c. But let us consider his answers.

1. ‘Though prudence do advise one to this, yet doth it not lay any command, which hath power of obliging, so as not to obey it, will be presently sinfull,’ &c. What Prudence [Page 107]doth he meane? If it be a carnal Prudence (for it is no better) advising onely, or first, to look at the perfection of Glory, that in­deed does not lay any obligation upon us. But if it be true divine Prudence, looking at the perfection of Virtue, required by the com­mands of God, it doth lay strong obligations upon us; so as if wee obey it not it is sinfull. Nor does it thereby cease to bee pruden­tiall, because of that command, which makes it necessary, but is prudentially neces­sarie.

2. He saies, ‘Though it is prudent to use those means which may advance us highest in glory, and perfection will doe that, yet 'twill not alwaies be prudence to undertake the way of perfection, because that being an high steep, may be also a dangerous way; every man cannot receive it,’ &c. What perfection does he mean will be dangerous to undertake as a steep way, &c.? The per­fection of Virtue, or Holiness required in the Commandments of Law, and Gospel? Sure that, though it be steep and high, yet it is no dangerous way at all; but the most safe, peaceable, and easiest way, if the Word may be beleeved. But I guesse by that phrase, ‘E­very man cannot receive it,’ that he meanes it of the Romish caelibate, * or Virginity, or Martyrdome, the rather because he adds, ‘For him that cannot overcome the difficul­ties [Page 108]to resolve upon the course, Which is not com­manded, any but looked on as the greatest degree of perfect­ion. may perhaps be precipitious,’ &c. That is, every man hath not that gift, and for him to undertake that way (of perfection) may be dangerous, and precipitious indeed. Now to undertake the way of perfection in Holinesse, cannot be dan­gerous to any, but is the duty of all, and every man may receive it, that in sincerity looks after it, at least to acceptation. And then that which he adds is as strange: Quaer. of Divorse sect 36. It may be a duty sometimes not to as­pire to some per­fection. Sect. 45. ‘That in the undertaking of the way of perfection, even the precept of God may interpose some­times, and trase us, and make it unlawfull for us to aspire to the most perfect state.’ I pray does the precept of God interpose at any time, or (as he speaks) trase us in the way of perfection in Holinesse? Doe Gods pre­cepts cross one another in that way of per­fection? Or rather is not perfect obedience to the precepts of God holiness and perfection it self? Does Gods precept make it, unlawfull for us to aspire to the most perfect state, which calls us to it? What strange Divinitie is this! But hear him speak, and explain himself. ‘As if the discharge of a duty of our calling should await us on one side, and an oppor­tunity of martyrdome, on t'other side, then in that case obedience is better then that richest Sacrifice, as in Cyprians case, &c.’ By this its evident, he means not the per­fection of Holines according to the Comman­dements [Page 109]of God, but a conceited perfection of martyrdome as Papists do: But does God call all men, at all times to martyrdom? Is there any command for all men to be Mar­tyrs? Yet there is a command for all men to obey God, to be perfectly holy; and no com­mand of God interposes, or trases us in this: Yea if a man, ambitious of Martyrdom (his highest perfection) should with neglect of o­bedience to a command of God, in discharge, but of a duty of his calling, aspire to Mar­tyrdome, he would scarce deserve the name of a Martyr, but of something else which I will not name. See pract. Cat. 2 E­dit. pag. 98. The Providence of God in­deed may interpose and trase us, (by denying us abilities to do more good, or leaving cor­ruptions to buffet us, that we cannot do the good we would (as Paul complaines) for rea­sons best known to himselfe. But then, who knows not, ‘That if there be a willing mind, it is accepted, according to what a man hath, not according to what he hath not.’ And his reward (for ought we know) may be accordingly; equall with those that have more abilities and opportunities of do­ing good, or suffering ill for Christ. Any man, all men, are alwayes bound to aspire to the perfection of Holinesse, not to the perfe­cto n of Martyrdome. And now wee goe on.

§. 46. ‘But then thirdly, the perfection [Page 110]we are commanded by Christ to aspire to, is capable of degrees; as in charitie or merci­fulnesse, Mat. 5.48. for so expounded Luke 6.36.’ Wee shall grant him this, and yet deny his voluntary oblations still: For wee say, there are degrees of, or rather to perfecti­on here; upon condition, that he will grant, that every degree, even the highest, is required by the Law of God, and what is short of the highest degree, is so farre culpable; and then it will follow, that there can be no [...], no voluntary oblation. Epist. 62. Let him hear St. Hierom speak our sense in this, ‘Charitas quae non potest augeri, &c. Charitie which cannot be increased as long as man lives here, is in no man; but as long as it may be increased; truly what is less then it ought to be, In vitio est. is faulty; by which faultiness there is no just man on earth, who doth good, and sinneth not.’ It is spoken in generall of the Love of God and man, but easily applyed to Charity strictly so called. But the Doctor goes on. ‘If there be any perfection attainable in this life, 'twill be capable of degrees, and growth also.’ Whether he be of their mind who hold perfection possible in this life, I cannot say; but this I can say, he speaks contradicti­ons; for perfection admits of no degrees or growth; but rather degrees and growth in Grace (which are oft commanded) argue there is no perfection in this life. The Doctor [Page 111]goes on still. ‘If it be not acquirable in this life, 'tis certainly not under Evangelicall precept now; that light and supportable burthen, that rod of not grievous, i. e. pos­sible commands, which Christ, & his grace brought into the world.’ This is strong and strange confidence. For first, doth not the Law it self (still in force under the Gospel) require perfect obedience of Christians? Did it not ever do so, as the eternall Rule of righ­teousnesse, and ever will? All Orthodox Di­vines have ever thought so, and maintained it against the Church of Rome. Onely, the Do­ctor, I finde, is of the same judgement with them of Rome, and sticks not to charge the Law, before Christ, with Imperfection. Hear his words, Pract. Catech. pag. 94. 2 Edit. ‘The Law & Commandements of God had before some mixture of Imperfection, but now have none; had before some vacuities in them, which now are filled up by Christ.’ Viderit ipse.

But secondly, doth not the Gospel also call for the perfection of the Law? Be ye per­fect as your heavenly Father is perfect, are the words of Christ himselfe. But least hee should say, as here sect. 46. by perfection there, is meant mercifulnesse (though that will little advantage him) what sayes he to that place of the Gospel, Be ye holy, as he is holy? 1 Pet. 1.15, 16. Which is taken out of [Page 112]the Law, Levi. 11.44. &c. Did God then or the Gospell now, call men to an Imper­fect Holinesse and set God for their patterne? But doth not the Doctor himself say, ‘Christ came to perfect the Law?’ in his Catech: supra pag. 93. and to set it higher, than be­fore? And yet is he certain and confident, ‘perfection is not under evangelicall precept now?’ And is not that perfection, the per­fection of the Law still, though it be required by the Gospell? Doth not the Gospell call for the perfection of the Law, upon new motives, of the Covenant of Grace, of the merits and death of Christ? upon indeed better termes; as mediating, that if we doe (as we do) fall short of that perfection, yet we shall be par­doned all our failings.

And thirdly, I aske, what it is, that makes the burthen of Christ, (requiring the same, (the Doctor saies, greater) perfection of the Law) ‘so light and supportable, the rod of command, so not grievous, i. e. possible?’ let the Doctor answer the question himselfe, in his Catech. p. 95. ‘It is made lighter by Christ, 1. in taking off that unprofitable burthen of ceremonies, that had nothing good in them (durius dictum.) 2. in respect of the damning power of every least sin or breach under the first covenant, to the be­leever taken away in the second. 3. in re­gard of greater strength given. &c.’ It was [Page 113]was not then the lightnesse of the burthen, that hee required not perfect Holinesse un­der the Gospell (for that he does 2 Cor. 7.1.) but that, if by repentance, faith and love, we sincerely endeavour after perfection, first our failings shall be pardond, 2. and our weake works accepted, through Christ our mediator. But still perfection, (though not ac­quirable here) is under Evangelicall pre­cept.

§. 47. Whence it is apparent, that that so plausible assertion (as the Doctor calls i [...]) ‘that every one is bound to doe that which is best,’ is not (as he) disernibly false; but visibly true; For if the Law (and Gospell also) require perfection of obedience, in eve­ry Commandement, then it bends every man to doe that which is best: And his argu­ments against it, are little worth: 1. For the Testimonie of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.28. ‘He that giveth in marriage doth well, and he that giveth not, doth better.’ For 1. well and better there, do not referre to morall goodnesse but Worldly good, in regard of the prevention of troubles, in those afflicted, and persecuting times: Marriage is, in it selfe, a thing indifferent, and so it may be good for some to marry, and better for others not to marry.

2. The matter is, how the parties are dis­posed; If a man have not the gift of conti­nence, [Page 114]it is not onely good, but necessary for him to marry, rather than to burn: and here it cannot be said, ‘he that giveth not in mar­riage doth better, but doth very ill.’ If a man had the gift of continency, is was bet­ter, (in those times, for the present distresse, ver. 26.) not to marry, but still with respect to Worldly, not morall good. 2. His other ar­gument is as weak; ‘That the best, being a superlative, supposes the positive to be good; whereas if all were bound to do that which is best, that which were onely good, were e­vill; for so is whatever comes short of what we are bound to do.’ I hope the Doctor will not deny, but works done by faith are Good; and yet, that they are not perfect in this life, that is, come short of what wee are bound to doe, if not by the Law, yet by the Gospell; will he now say, Greg. mo­ral. lib. 9. c. 1. they are evill? They are called good, by the indulgence, and acceptance of God, in Christ; but not strictly or perfect­ly good: He knowes who said it. Omnis huma­na justitia injustitia esse convincitur, si dist­rictè judicetur.

§. 48. The next Objection raised by him, helps to confirme the former answer; The Law is, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, soul, strength, &c.’ which implyes the utmost endeavour, to perfection, in all our obedience, He answers, ‘that that phrase denoteth onely two things. Sect. 49. 1. sincerity [Page 115]of his love of God, as opposed to partiall divided love or service: 2. the loving him above all other things, not admitting any thing in competition with him, or in such a degree of love.’ But we say, 1. That both these are noted & required, we grant but deny that onely these are required, for the Law re­quired perfect love. (John 4.18. perfect love, casteth out fear) such as was in Adam in in­nocency; but that is not acquirable in this life: 2. If he will but grant, that whatever comes short of that perfection, needs (and by grace shall find) a pardon, and be accepted; we contend no farther. For let it be supposed, yea granted, that sincere love, is capable of degrees, whither in the same man, at seve­rall times, or two men at the same time, and so both obey the precept; yet those degrees, and growth of love, do argue love not to be perfect (and so not strictly answerable to the Law) & so farre faulty, in vitio, as Hierome said, above.

But what shall wee say to that Instance of Christ himselfe; ‘Who, we know, did never fail, in performing what was mans dutie in prayer, or any thing else; yet at that time, Luk. 22.24. prayed more earnestly; which is a demonstrative evidence, that the low­er degree, is not necessarily sinfull, when the higher is acceptable to God, which when it is granted, there will be no doubt but these freewill-offerings, will be reconcilea­ble [Page 116]with that command; and so room left for a voluntary oblation.’ But wee say to this, This example of Christ, will not be applya­ble to men. For Christ was above the Law; and did more then the Law required, and did supererogate in many his actions, and passi­ons; and so in the degree of affection in pray­er, if not in the prayer it self: But men are so farre from Supererogating by any service, prayer, or the like; that they fall many degrees short of what is required, and due from them, and so no room left for freewil-offerings, as his voluntary oblations. Yet thus much that example holds forth, that greater pressures and necessities, call for enlargement of affections not as voluntary oblations, but as duties.

§. 50. &c. And this makes way for ano­ther, and the last objection; ‘That if it be granted possible for a Christian, to do more, than he is commanded, he may then super­erogate, as the Romanists teach.’ The Doct­or answers.

1. ‘There is a great difference, between offering, that a man may do more than is commanded; and that, he may do something which is not commanded; The former suppo­ses him to have done all commanded, the se­cond may be true, though in most, or all other things, he have been wanting: Hee asserts the second, not the first.’ But is not [Page 117]this new distinction, sometimes coincident? For he that doth somewhat not commanded; does also something more, than is comman­ded; though hee hath not in other things, done all that is commanded; and so to doe more than is commanded, does not suppose, he hath done all that is commanded, nor doe the Romanists suppose that, to their supere­rogation: so this is nothing.

2. He addes therefore; ‘That to superero­gate supposeth one of these two things, 1. either that the person spoken of, hath paid God all that is due to him, by way of per­fect obedience, i. e. hath never sinned; or 2. that having sinned, and so become a debtor, he hath paid that debt, by satis­faction, by doing something else, which may satisfie God, for his sin, &c.’

But the first of these, is just the same with the former, that by doing more than was commanded, was supposed, hee had done all that was commanded, i. e. had never sinned; which himselfe saies, the Romanists do not own. It must then lye all upon the second, that though he have sinned, yet he may satisfie God so for his sinne, by some other work not commanded (for duties pay no Debts, much lesse supererogate) not onely for himself, but also for others, ex abundanti, &c. Now saies the Doctor; from both these, the present Doctrine is free: For the first, its true, the [Page 118]Doctor does not say, that the person never sinned; or hath perfect obedience; but yet this he saies, (with the Romanists) that hee may doe something not commanded, that is (say I) something more than is commanded, which sounds ill, in an Orthodox eare; and yet this is that, which the Doctor hath been labouring to prove for many sections together. As for the second, the Doctor disclaimes the Doctrine of satisfaction, and so consequently, (so farre) that of Supererogation: But yet cannot free his doctrine from some kind of Supererogation. For, works of Supererogati­on, have not their denomination, from satis­faction made by them; but they are therefore thought to be satisfactions, because, they doe something more than the Law required; Supe­rerogare, is as much, as, super quod erogavit lex: Yea in many respects such works may be said to Supererogate.

First, with respect to the Law it self, when men think they have done more than the Law required, which makes them not Supereroga­torie, but Derogatory, from the perfection of the Law of God, and layes imperfection up­on it, (as the Doctor hath plainly done a­bove.) 2. With respect had to other men, men, who attain not to that perfection (as they call it) to do something more than com­manded; as that Pharisee, that said (with scorne and pride enough) "I am not as other [Page 119]men, I fast twice a week. And this was the note of discrimination, between the Hasidaej, and the Haraej, as we heard above. 3. With respect to the over-pleasing and acceptance of God: They that think that they can doe something not commanded, do think, and ex­pect to find more, and greater acceptance from God, than they themselves or others do, for doing onely what is commanded: Papists do indeed, think they can merit wich God by such works, for themselves ond others: Ours are not come so far yet, but they do think to find (or procure) more acceptance for their voluntary oblations here, and if not glory it self, yet a greater reward, and greater glory hereafter for such works. For more accep­tance the Doctor speakes expresly; Sect. 16. ‘When in the service of God, a man out of a pious affection shall do any thing else, beside what God hath commanded, by any par­ticular precept, this action of his, is ac­counted so much more commendable to God.’ And elsewhere, ‘The more voluntary the service, the more acceptable.’ What excep­tions may be made to this, see above at Sect. 16. and adde, If the Doctor should meane it of voluntarinesse in a prescribed worship of God, it is not to the purpose; for even the highest voluntarinesse, is there required. If he mean it of a voluntary, wil devised worship, I have said, and say again, ‘The more volun­tary, [Page 120]the more abhominable.’ As for the o­ther, that by their voluntary oblations, they do thinke and expect to finde greater glory, and reward hereafter, the Doctor is not so expresse; Yet when he makes it ‘a part of prudence, to aspire to the most perfect state, that is, (as he implyes) Martyrdome, for his reason, because that is the way and means, to advance us highest in glory;’ Sect. ‘43, 44. Knowing the greatest perfection, to be most gloriously rewarded;’ he comes very near to think, that voluntary oblations, such as voluntary Martyrdome, may procure, greater reward, than commanded worship. To draw to a conclusion of all; when the Doctor saies, ‘His Doctrine forbiddeth any the most justified man, to pretend to­ward satisfying for others, but to work out his own salvation, with fear and tremb­ling, i. e. with all the Humility in the world.’ This may be true in the Doctrine; but in the Practise, I fear it tends to pride, and scorne, to teach men, ‘That to do things not commanded, will make a man more accep­table to God, and purchase him a greater measure of glory hereafter, than to do things onely commanded by God:’ Wee have too much experience of the successe, of such Doctrine, not onely in the old Hasidaej, and later Pharisees, but palpably in the Church of Rome, at this day; and our own late Su­perstiti­tious [Page 121] Willworshipers, and Formalists, who did overlooke others (who like the Karaeans, kept close to the Rule of the word, for their worship) with abundance of con­tempt and insolence; as all that knew the times, can suffi­ciently testifie.

OF CHRISTMAS, AND other FESTIVALS of the CHURCH.

Section 1.

IT is true indeed, that when the Apostle sayes, 1 Cor. 11.16. If any man seem to be conten­tious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. From hence may bee made, 1. Negatively; we, or the Churches have no such custome: ergo they are contentious that would induce any new practise into the Church. 2. Affirmatively, we Apostles, and the Churches of Christ have such a custome; ergo they are contentious that oppose, or re­ject it. But the force of the consequence is far stronger in the Negative (which is the inference of that Text) than in the Affirma­tive, unlesse some other considerations be put in: For example, the Apostolical Church had no such custome as the Sacrifice of the Mass, praying for, or to the dead, worshiping of I­mages, &c. ergo they are contentious and su­perstitious who bring them into the Church: On the other side, it will not follow the Apo­stolical Church had a custome, to observe the [Page 124] Sabbath of the Jews (when they came amongst them) to circumcise, sometimes to abstain from blood, &c. to avoyd offence, and winne the Jews; ergo they that go about afterwards to lay down these, are contentious; this will no wayes be admitted. The reason is, because the Apostles afterwards repealed those Jewish customes. Two cautions therefore must be ad­ded to make the Affirmative constringent.

1. That the custome which is pleaded for, be brought into the Church by the Apostles themselves, for Gospel worship: For he saies, ‘We (we) have no such custome, nor the Churches of God.’ The Gospel Churches by us planted.

2. That the custome pleaded be grounded truly (if not so clearly) upon the Word of God: For this is no good argument against a rational Disputant. ‘The present Church (of Rome, suppose, or any Church, some centurie, or more of years after the Apo­stles) hath such or such a custom; ergo we must receive it, unless we will be counted con­tentious.’ But this is thought a good infe­rence: ‘The Apostolicall purest Church had a custom to observe the Lords day, the first day of the week, Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. instead of the old Sabbath; ergo that day was instituted by the Apostles, and they that reject it, or prophane it, are more then con­tentious, even sacrilegious.’ And upon these con­siderations [Page 125]fiderations the Doctor hath consulted ill to his own cause, to produce this Text for his Festivall: For hee dare not say it was insti­tuted by the Apostles, nor can prove it was observed by the prime, and purest Church (though he oft assert it) then the inference is strong against him. ‘The Apostle, & prime Apostolicall Church had no such custom as the observation of Christmas; ergo they are contentious who plead for its continuance.’ It matters not then what the ancient usage of the Church of England hath been; if it be­gan not with the Apostles in the first Chur­ches: Which, of the Feast of Christs Nativi­tie, cannot, I think, be proved; I am sure is not performed by the learned Doctor. Nor yet that the Church of England was extant in the Apostles times; or if it were, that this custome of Christmas was from the begin­ing of the plantation of the Gospell a­mongst us, which yet he undertakes to ma­nifest.

§. 2. The latter he first begins with: And that it is thus ancient he will prove, ‘By one objection against, viz. the retaining of some heathen usages, in the observation of it, which are undeniable Testimonies of the An­tiquity and un-interrupted continuance of this practise, even from the time of our first conversion: For otherwise, it is not imagi­nable how any heathen usage should be found [Page 126]adherent to it.’ But this is no way constrin­gent: For they might bee added (together with the Festival it self) some good while af­ter the first conversion, of some part of this Island, the better to winne the rest to a liking of Christian Religion, by conforming to them in celebration of Festivals; as the like was done to winne the Jewes in observing the old Sabbath, Pentecost, &c. ‘The Apostles (saies the Doctor) to attract the Jews to the Christian Religion, Sect. 71. did gratifie them in re­taining many of their customs. That was for a time, but after cast them off.’ And this Festivall being substituted instead of the old Saturnalia, in the same Month (as is confessed by many, Sect. 63. and the Doctor himselfe) no mar­vaile if some heathen usages stuck close to it, and could not since be gotten out: For those heathen usages continued by the ruder multi­tude (and others too) though they have been ‘no part of the office of the Feast,’ yet doe they fully hold out these two things;

1. ‘How easie a thing it is for such ill u­sage, to creep into humane Ordinances.’

2. ‘How hard it is, to get them out, when once got in, being ready to plead prescripti­on.’ Seeing after so long a time as fifteen, or sixteen hundred yeares continuance (as the Dr. thinks they still attend the Festival; peo­ple being more tenacious of customs, received by the Tradition of their Fathers, 1 Pet. 1.18 then of the very Institutions of God.

§. 3.4. For the former, that the conversion of England was early, is very likely, but not so early, as is pretended, but not proved: For as the Histories and Monuments are very ob­scure and doubtfull, differing much one from another; so the Doctor himself is very uncer­tain, where to place the beginning, or who was the Instrument of our conversion. ‘It may be beleeved, either Apostolical, or very near the Apostles times.’ Faine would hee have us think it was by some Apostle, if he knew how to make it out. Some affirm it was Si­mon Zelotes, Sect. 6. ‘And there was some colour for the affirmation of Simon Meta­phrastes; That St. Peter stayed in Britaine sometime, converted many, and constituted Churches, & ordained Bishops in the twelfth year of Nero's reign.’ But he slurs his Au­thor thus: ‘The authority of this Writer is not great.’ He might have said, Nothing worth, being contradicted by so many others, and by the Doctor himself, by and by. Yet it might be near the Apostles times by some Apostolicall men; some say ‘rather by Jo­seph of Arimathea;’ for so. Mr. Camden re­ports (from as ancient Records, and credible as any we have; for we have none very ancient or very credible, ‘That Joseph of Arima­thea planted Christianity here coming out of France.’ Belike Crescens sent him hither to convert she Britains; if he did not come, [Page 182]and doe it himself: For so the Doctor would have it, and proves it out of Scripture, 2 Tim. 4.10. Crescens (sent by St. Paul was gone into Galatia; where Galatia may signifie France, as some Authors take it, and the Doctor is willing to beleeve it: For presently (though others contradict) hee takes it for granted, when he sayes, ‘What is so early affirmed in Scripture of the communicating of the Go­spell to France (i. e. by Crescens) which is so near to us, removes all improbabilitie from those Histories which record the plan­tation of the Gospel in these Islands in the Apostles times.’ Its easie to beleeve, that Cre­scens, if he were in France, might quickly step over into Engl. but the former is yet to prove: For the Doctor knows very well, that very learned men deny, that Galatia was there ta­ken for France; but for a part of Asia, which is far enough from England. Yea they de­monstrate it (as they think) that it was not meant of France; for which I referre him to Estius on the place, 2 Tim. 4.10. However, whether Crescens were ever in France or no, sure he was not in England to convert the Nation. Hear the Doctors own words: "This (which he had said before) ‘is an evidence, that neither Peter nor Paul, nor Crescens, nor any of those that usually accompanied either of those two Apostles, did bring the Christian Faith to this Island. He might have added, [Page 129] Nor Joseph of Arimathea, nor Simon Ze­lotes, upon the reason there by him given.’ The Affirmation of Gildas, that this was in Tiberius's Raign, was meer Tradition, and farre from probability: For then England should be converted, within four yeares after Christs death; In the 18. of Tiberius, our Lord suffered, and Tiberius raigned but 22. in all: No Authors of any credit, lay it so high. As for Tertullian and Origen; they lived both in the third Centurie, above 200. years after Christ, And its very likely, Christi­anity was planted here, in some parts, some time before them. But its very observable, that neither of those Antients, nor any be­fore them, in all their writings, ever mention the Feast of the Nativity, as then in obser­vation, though they often speake of other usages of the Church, before, and in their times. The most probable opinion is, that, though some persons, of this, as of most Na­tions, were converted early to the Faith, yet the Nation, or any considerable part of it, was not converted till King Lucius his time, (about the yeare of Christ, 180.) the first Christian King, in the whole world, (which is a great honour to our Nation.) This was done (say Historians) in the time of Eleutherius, then Bishop of Rome, who lived towards the end of the second Centu­rie. And his Epistle to King Lucius (if that [Page 130]be Authentick, Sir Henr. Spilm. con­cil. Brit. p. 16. for the Doctor doubts it, and well he may, if hee do but remember what a learned Historian saies) doth not say, that Britain, had long ago (before Lucius his time) received the Faith, but rather, nuper, lately; and so it was in the Latine, in the Doctors Margine, but wisely left out in the English; which why it was done, let others judge. Historians say, that King Lucius, desired of Eleutherius, that he and his peo­ple, might have some sent to baptize them; who accordingly, sent Fugatius and Damia­nus. Now if Christianity, had been planted here from the Apostles times, or by Apostoli­call men, its not probable, that they left no Presbyters here to baptize, but that they must send to Rome for such: which would give Ro­manists a fairer plea, to subject England to Rome; then that of Augustine the Monke; which the Doctor disputes so much against hereafter.

§. 5. Dioclesians persecution, falls in the beginning of the fourth Century, after Christ, before which time, wee hear of Christianity planted here; and it may be, the Feast of the Nativity was set up, in some Churches, be­fore this time; but not universally in all, "till about 400. years after Christ, (as wee shall hear the Doctor confesse, before we have done) though he pleads hard, to prove it a custome of the Church, in all ages: And this [Page 131]may serve anon, to answer that which will be produced, for the Festivitie, that Diocle­sian slew 20000 Christians assembled toge­ther, on that day: though the Author of that report, is of no great credit.

§. 6. ‘The celebration of Easter, by the antient British Churches, contrary to the custome of the Western Churches will give little light,’ to the maine question, concerning the first Plantation of the Gospell here, by the Apostles, &c. or the Antiquity of the Festivall, pleaded for. It may indeed argue, that England did not receive Christianity first from Rome, in Augustines time; but does not prove, that those that planted Christianity here, ‘were such as in the A­postolicall times, kept their Easter after the Jewish manner.’ For the Eastern Christi­ans commonly kept it so, but not in the A­postles times. Which the Doctor takes for granted; but is denyed him: and that upon these Reasons.

1. There is no mention of either the Institu­tion, or observation of it, in Scripture, nor any ground to found it upon. The Apostles did take advantage of that, and the like Solem­nities, to preach to the Jewes, to convert them, (as was said afore) but so farre were they from Institution of them, as Christian Feasts, that they do expresly repeal them, and cry them down.

[Page 132]2. Lib. 5. c. 22. Socrates the Historian saies, ‘The A­postles were not sollicitous, to appoint any Festivall daies at all,’ then not this of Easter.

3. The difference of the observation of it, in the Eastern, See Lo Falk. re­ply. p. 99. and Western Churches, makes it evident it was not Instituted by the A­postles: for then it would be uniformly ob­served in all places. And as for the Authority of the succeeding Church, in such matters, we shall meet with it anon, yet this we say, at present, that the observation of Easter, hath better Antiquity, than this of Christmas, though not Apostolicall.

§. 7. But the Doctor hath found one Evi­dence of moment; ‘Christmas day is called in our old Monument, Midwinter day; whence it may reasonably be concluded, that when that name was first applyed to that day, Christmas day was in the Ca­lendar, either coincident with, or not far re­moved, from the Winter Solstice: and wee continue to call the 24. of June, Midsomer day; halfe a year from the 25^th of Decem­ber.’

How sweetly all agree? John Baptist was conceived, six months before our Lord, and and so born six months before him: Hence the Feastmasters, plead his birth on the 24. of June, and his, and our Lords on the 25. of December.

[Page 133]1. But I would be satisfied, which is the Older Festivall, that of John, or this of Christ? Its observed by Chemnitius, that the Feast of the Nativity, was not heard of, in the most antient Church; till towards the 400. year; but no mention of the Feast of Iohn Baptist till towards the 800. year; Or it may be they were both appointed about the same time: upon supposition then by the Western Church, that our Saviour was borne on the 25. of December (as the Doctor saies) and the Feast of Nativity setled upon that day, either they or some others, placed the Feast of Iohn Baptist on the 24. of Iune; that all might correspond.

2. If the names of Midwinter day, and Mid­sommer day, were so called here, while the Island was Heathen, they were far more anti­ent, than Christmas Day: and then, Christ­mas day, was rather applyed to Midwinter day, than Midwinter day, to Christmas day: but however it was, it followes not (as the Doctor would have it) ‘that it must be soon after our Saviours times, that this day was capable of that appellation, and con­sequently that the day was here celebrated so early.’ For it might be, a good while af­ter, so called, when the Island was first con­verted, which was not, (as we have dis­coursed) till towards the end of the second Century.

[Page 134]3. It is confessed by the Doctor, ‘that Midwinter day is a fortnight sooner than our Christmas day; the solstice being about the 11. of December.’ Then say I, they kept not Christmas day, on Midwinter day; for thats a fortnight sooner: So wee keep it not on the same day, with our first converts, nor yet on the day, that the Western Church now keep it, who keep it stilo novo, 10. daies before us: Which difference of observation, (as was said of Easter) argues it, not to be Apostolicall, nor soon after our Saviours daies (as the Doctor saies.) For if they had insti­tuted such a Feast to the honour of our Sa­viour, they would all have agreed upon the same day, in all places, as they did, in obser­vation of the Lords day, for our Christian Sabbath.

§. 8. Upon those his premises, he drawes out two Corolaries or Characters, set upon this, or any other Christian Solemnity, East­er, Pentecost, &c. of immemoriall usage, in this Nation. ‘First that the antiquity of it, doth no way argue, that it hath any thing of the corruptions of the Roman See, ad­hering to it, but the contrary.’ To which we have partly spoken afore; and now adde; that as the observation of Easter different­ly from the Western Church, doth argue, that wee received not our Christianity from Rome; so the Antiquity of the observation [Page 135]of Christmas, and some other Festivalls (sup­pose in the third or fourth Century) may al­so argue, that they have nothing of the cor­ruption of the Roman See, (we mean, since it was judged Antichristian, about the yeare 600.) adhering to them: But yet may have too much of the Corruption of those Church­es, wherein they were first invented; Corrup­tion (we say) which crept into those Chur­ches, not long after the Apostles daies. It's known to all, that read the Histories of the Church, how many Innovations and Super­stitions were crept into the Church, long be­fore Rome began to be Babilon; And Romish Religion, is a bundle of most of those Cor­ruptions.

§. 9. But for the second inference, ‘That any such antient usage of this particular Church, if it had no other ground to stand on (as its foundation) or concurrence of all other Churches (as pillars) to sustaine it, were a very competent Authority for the continuance of such a practice in this Kingdome.’ Wee shall take leave to demur a little upon this. For grant (as wee may) that this Anglicane, or British Church be ve­ry antient, by its foundation, and [...], for its authority, as subordinate to no Forrain Patriarch, yet we justly question, (though the Doctor doe not) whither it be ‘invest­ed with such an unquestionable power to in­stitute [Page 136]what Ceremonies it please,’ which may not upon good reasons, be changed and abo­lished. It is known sufficiently, that many antient Customes, and Ceremonies (as antient perhaps as his Christmas) instituted, or ta­ken up, by this, and the concurrence of many, if not most Churches, have "without teme­ritie been altered, and abolished: and others may and must, when they be abused to Su­perstition and prophaness, (as this Feast will appear to have been.) It will not be amiss, here briefly to consider, what that ‘un­questionable power of this or any Church is, to constitute Ceremonies for its selfe, (as it shall judge most useful, most for edificati­on, and most agreeable to the Analogie of faith) which consequently may not, with­out great temerity, be changed and abolish­ed by any.’ And then, whither this Feast be a Ceremonie of that nature.

For the first, ‘the Authority of the Church, to constitute Ceremonies for its selfe;’ it is not justly called, unquestion­able; for it hath for many years past, beene the apple of contention, between the Prelates and the Non-conformists: But before we debate it, we desire to know, and be satisfied in two things.

1. What he meanes by the Church, whi­ther 1. the Universall Church, for he often speakes of that. Sect. 12.45. &c. and char­ges [Page 137]us ‘with seperation and Schism, for de­parture from the Universall Church.’ If so, I would say two things; First that the Uni­versall Church, of the first ages (or since) never met to institute any Ceremonies, for all Churches, nor in speciall, for this of Christ­mas. Secondly, if they had met, yet that Church, had no power, to bind after Church­es, (if they met) if they saw cause to abo­lish them; for a reason anon to be given. But 2. if he take it of a particular Church, (as this of England: as here he doth) then I say again; 1. We read of no such Cannons made by the Church, at the first conversion, to make the usage so antient, and to bind all her Children, in after ages. 2. If we did find such, yet the Succeeding Church, having the same Power, may annull if she see cause, what was by them instituted.

2. We desire also to know what he means, by Ceremonies, for this is an ambiguous word, under which the Romanists do shroud their Superstitious Will-worship: Ceremonies then, are of two sorts. 1. Meere Circumstan­ces of commanded Worship, for the more orderly and decent performance of it: Or 2. Parts of Worship, as the Iewish Ceremonies for certain, were. If the Doctor mean it, in the latter sense (as I think he does) wee must again distinguish of such Ceremonies, they are either dumbe and non-significant, [Page 138]as the Church of Rome hath many, or Signi­ficant, and that either, by Nature, or by In­stitution: If significant by institution, then either by Divine, or Humane Institution. These Distinctions being premised, wee sup­pose the Doctor, does not meane of the Cere­moniall circumstances, or Adjuncts of com­manded worship, for that will not stand him in any stead; nor does any man deny the Church a Power to order those. But he must meane it, of Ceremoniall Worship, as opposed to Moral; And that not, for Dumbe or Non-significant Ceremonies: those he dislikes, in the Church of Rome; but for Significant Ceremonies; not significant by Nature, those need no Institution; but by Institution, not Divine, (that were little lesse than a contra­diction) but Humane Institution. Then the question is this, ‘Whither the Church, Uni­versall for all Churches; or a particular Church, for her own members, have an un­questionable Authority to institute Signi­ficant Ceremonies, as parts of worship, which may not, upon just reasons, be changed, or abolished.’ This was the Question to be pro­ved; but is onely taken for granted; in these particulars, by the Dr.

1. That the Church whether Universall, or particular hath such a power to institute Ce­remonies, (unlesse they be such as tend to Eu­taxy, and Decencie, and the preservation or [Page 139]furtherance of Gods commanded worship) what and how many she please, ‘as she shall judge most usefull, most for edification,’ &c. as the Doctor saies, but goes not about to prove, but takes it as unquestionable. This we do deny, and wee thinke upon good rea­sons, (besides the judgement of Re­formed Churches;) If the Church be allow­ed such a power, the mischiefes will be ma­ny. As.

1. Its prejudicious to the simplicity of Gos­pell-worship. 2 Cor. 11.3. ‘the simplicity which is in Christ.’ That is, in the Gospell of Christ. Ceremo­nies bur­thenous in the number, might turn it in­to evill Will wor­ship. sect. 25. It was spoken with respect to the false Apostles, who by their [...], subtle perswasive words, did corrupt both the Doctrine and Worship of the Gospell; as may appear by comparing this place, with Col. 2. The Worship of the Law, was for the most part, Ceremoniall, in externall pompe and services: But the Worship of the Gospel, is lesse ceremonious, and gaudie, and more spirituall; Joh. 4. "in spirit and truth, op­posed to those ceremoniall, typicall, shadowes and figures of the Legall worship. The Gospel Worship is for the most part morall, praying, preaching, hearing, &c. without any thing like to that ceremoniall worship, except the observation of the Lords day, and the two Sacraments, designed and instituted by Christ himself, or by his Commission: But if the [Page 140] Church have a power to institute ceremoniall Worship, she may bring us back to a Legall worship, equall with the Jewes: as the Church of Rome hath done.

2. If the Church have any such power, to institute Ceremonies; they must be either Non­significant ones, but those Protestants dis­claim as idle fooleries: or significant; and then, either by nature, or Institution; Those of nature, need no Institution; If Institution be pleaded, it must be either Divine, but the Church hath nothing to do with them, they are instituted to her hands: Or Humane, but thats expreslly against the second Comman­dement; as hath been said elsewhere. ‘God onely can prescribe his own worship.’ Hence it was, that those Traditions of worship, in­troduced by the false teachers, are coudem­ned, because they were ‘the Doctrines and commandements of men.’ Col. 2.22. which when our Divines urge against such kind of ceremoniall worship, in the Church of Rome, as Humane Institutions, they have no way to avoid it, Vide Estium & Corne l. A lapide in locum. but to say; ‘Ceremonies institu­ted by an humane spirit, (as ours are) are there condemned, but theirs are institu­ted by the holy Ghost joyning with their Pastors, in the Regiment of the Church,’ as the Rhemists speak, on Math. 15.9. and others more. And therefore Papists may bet­ter plead their binding power, than ours can [Page 141]do. I shall adde to this, That to institute sig­nificant ceremonies, as a part of Worship, is a superstjtious excesse, and so Wil-worship, which I prove from the Doctors own Concessions: ‘To put more virtue and efficacie into things, Of Super­stition▪ sect. 45. then either naturally, or by the Rule of Gods Word is in them, is a nimiety,’ & so Supersti­tion; but for men to institute significant cere­monies, for edification, to teach, and instruct, &c. is to put more virtue and efficacy in them then naturally, or by the Rule of the Word, (that is, Divine Institution) God put in them; ergo. The Major is the Doctors own; the Mi­nor is evident: They have it not by Nature; nor by divine Institution (then they needed not humane Institution) ergo, it is superstitious; and consequently the Church hath no such power.

3. Grant her but such power, and there will be no end of Ceremonies; no man can tell where she will stay, Of Super­stit. sect 38. unlesse some bounds be prescribed in Scripture. The Doctors qualifi­cations, "That they be few and wholsome, have no ground to rest on. For who shall judge of the number or unwholsomnes, with­out a Rule? Not any private man, that's de­nyed, and very reasonably. Not a particular Church; the Universall may judge otherwise. Not the Universall Church of one Age; for the next Generation may be wiser, and thinke them too few, or too many; not wholsom, or [Page 142]unwholsom, and so may either multiply, or annul them. See more of this in the Discourse of Superstition, Sect. 32.33. Upon this ground grow all those, more then Jewish ceremo­nies of the Romish Church. That of the first.

2. The Doctor takes for granted also, that the Church hath power to institute Holy daies (such as Christmas) and to make them equall with the Lords day: For of this he is speak­ing, while he gives the Church this unque­stionable power, but he cannot but know this is denyed by many Divines.

3. He also takes as yeelded, That there is some ancient Institution of this Church for his Christmas, from our first conversion; which must be the ground for it to stand on, and "a competent Authoritie for the con­tinuance of such a practise in this Kingdome; but this he hath not proved.

4. Once more, he takes as granted; ‘That such ceremonies, or Festivals established by a Church, That were to restrain our liber­ty, and to exchange one bur­then for another. So the Dr. of Su­perstition sect. 56. may not, without great temerity be changed, or abolished by any.’ What? not by the Universall Church? not by the succeeding Church? That were to make the Laws of a particular Church, like those of the Medes and Persians, unchange­able, and equall with the Laws of God. Or else to cut short the succeeding Church from the same priviledge of the former; and so in time the Church may lose all power to insti­tute [Page 143] New ceremonies; or else ceremonies may be multiplyed to the end of the world. And so much of the first, the Authority of the Church, to institute Ceremonies. A word of the next.

Secondly, we must enquire, whether if the Church have any power to ordain any Cere­monies, this of Christmas, be such, as she may ordain. We have said, and say again, to insti­tute Holy daies, and to make them parts of Geds worship, is a priviledge of God alone. If now the Doctor shall say, The Church insti­tutes this Festival onely as a circumstance, or Adjunct of Worship commanded, it will bee little to his purpose, and makes it no more holy, than any other day, when the same wor­ship is performed. But its evident, that in the Church of Rome, this, and other Festivals are not counted meer Ceremonies in that sense; but as parts of Divine Worship, and so obser­ved, with greater solemnities, and more Cere­monies than the Lords day it self; which is both superstitious and sacrilegious. And thus it hath been with some, yea many of our Pre­latical and Cathedral men, esteemed and ob­served, not onely as equally holy with the Lords day, but with more solemn services, with more abstinencie from labour and recreations; as we shall hear our Doctor confesse anon. We now consider what he sayes to prove the disusing of these Feasts blameable.

§. 10. ‘These are part of that establish­ment which the Reformation in this King­dom hath enacted for us by act of Parlia­ment. To this we say;’

1. The Reformation formerly made in this Kingdome, we have good cause to blesse God for; but we know it was not so full and per­fect as the Reformers themselves could have wished, by reason of the times, new come out of the darknesse of Popery, and the tenacious­nesse of old customs, received by tradition of their Fathers.

2. This seems to grant that the Reformati­on, and so the establishment of these Festivals in this Nation, was made by the State, and not by the Church, which now is pleaded for.

§. 11. Secondly, ‘This, & other Feasts of Christ, are in the Reformed, especially the Lutheran Churches, stil retained, and where they are taken away in some Churches, by some sober members wished for.’ We answer to this; The Churches that retain these Feasts (especially the Lutherans) are not reputed the best Reformed Churches, nor by the Do­ctor himself (I beleeve) thought fit to be com­pared with England, & some other Churches in Doctrine and Worship, and so no fit presi­dents for our Reformation. What private persons wish or say, is not much to be regard­ded; unlesse their reasons bee constringent. However, we are not alone, nor the first in [Page 145]this dis-usage of this Festivall: Some Pro­testant Reformed Churches, are with us, and afore us. As for the Sermons given to Christmas day, by some that now disuse it (wherin ‘The whole body of their publick devotions,’ is falsely said, now to consist, their prayers be­ing as good, and as large as the Liturgies) it will afford him no more succour, than this; That the Authority then in being, com­manding Vacation from work, they onely took the opportunity to preach, to prevent dis­orders in their people, which attend such Festivities; And the Authority now in force, prohibiting, they doe forbear to preach.

§. 12.3. The laying down, or disusing the observation of this Festivity, ‘is not an act of Division or separation, from either the particular Church of England, or from the Universall Church in all ages, especi­ally that of the first and purest times:’ Not the latter for certain; for we have proved a­fore, the first and purest ages of the Church, did not observe it. Not the former, unlesse he will yeeld, that the Reformation of the Church of England, in former times, was a Division or separation from the Church of Rome; or the Reformation in Luthers time, was a division and separation from the Ca­tholick Church, as Papists say it was.

§. 13.4. If Superstition and profaness may be ground sufficient to lay aside a Custome; [Page 146]the complexion of the times have long since invited to the laying aside the usage of this Feast. His pretences to the contrary, are in­sufficient.

1. ‘The omission of Christmas sermons and services, tends not to raze out of the minds of the ignorant sort, the slender knowledge they have of the birth of Christ, and consequent mysteries of Religion For the Gospell being read and preached on,’ all the year long; they cannot but often hear of the Birth, Life, Death, Buriall, and resurrection of Christ. The Knowledge which the igno­rant people learned by some mens Christmas Sermons, Act 25: was slender indeed, nothing but a Superficiall (as he) Notionall, carnall knowledge of one Jesus (as that Roman De­putie spake) that was borne at that time, to give men liberty to Feast, & be merry.

2. This cannot (as he charges it) ‘gra­tifie their worldly affections, and assist A­theism, &c.’ but rather to keep it (as u­sually they did) in all Festivall delights, (like the Revells of Bacchus) did both mote gratifie their Worldly lusts, and ten­ded to Atheism, and profanesse.

3. The Casuists (whose great reason hee seemes to applaud) affirming, that ‘the ne­cessaries of beleefe, for the vulgar sort are no more than the great Holy dayes of the year,’ spake with as much, that is, as lit­tle [Page 147]reason, as their fellowes the Jesuits, who say and affirm, that ‘Images are the best laymens-books instead of the Scrip­tures.’

4. The ejecting of these Holydaies out of the Church, will not any with ‘dispatch the opinion of any necessity of beleeving the Articles of faith;’ (the Creed being still to be retained, in and with the Catechisme) for the Ministers preaching constantly of those Truths, may helpe not onely in some degree (as he) but very much, and more, than the great Holydaies of themselves can doe. And why not abundantly sufficient as it was, in the first planting of Churches, be­fore these Festivalls were invented? We have had enough experience, that in those places (Cathedrall Cities) where those Festivalls have been most punctually and solemnly ob­served (taking in there Chrystmas Sermons too) there have been found, lesse saving knowledge of Christ, more Superstition, and more Prophanesse, than in any Country Vil­lages, where the Gospell hath been sinceerely preached.

§. 14. ‘The Impatience of sound Doctrine, and readinesse to embrace what ever is novel is not to be found in those of dee per,’ sound knowledge; but in the ungrounded professors of former times, made formal Christians by external Ceremonies, & outward Pomp of ser­vice: [Page 148]But those that endeavoured to Reforme the abuses of Superstition and prophanesse, are the men onely, or chiefly, that propugne and maintain sound Doctrine; whereas those that were the greatest favourers of those Fest­vities, some of them, either are fallen into the propagating of error, Arminianism, &c. or at least doe little appeare to maintain the truth

As for ‘Hospitality and charity at those times,’ its observable in many strong pleaders for Christmas, that they are willing enough to abate the charge of the Feast, both then, and all the year after; yet no body hinders them from being Hospitable and Charitable.

§. 15.5. ‘What ever specious design was in the first institutors of this piece of Service to Jesus Christ (as after it is called) it matters not much.’ Gideons design, in making a Golden Ephod, was very fair, to leave a Monument of his Victory, ‘as a pious pub­lik acknowledgement of his thankfullnesse,’ yet it proved a snare, to him and his house & to all Israel. Many of the Superstitions of the now Church of Rome, had no doubt a pious design, and a shew of wisdome, but the issue hath been very mischeivous: Even so, it hath happened to this Institution now in hand.

§. 16. There may indeed a threefold guilt and danger be charged upon the Institution and continuance of this observance; ‘1. Of [Page 149]Will-worship because it is not commanded in scriptures. 2. of Superstition, in observing dates, 3. Of Riot frequent in such Festi­valls.’ The two former, (he saies) he hath spoken to else where, viz. ‘both in his Trea­tises of Will-worship and Superstition, and also in his practicall Catechisme:’ In the two former, though something be said in generall, or in thesi, yet nothing, that I ob­serve, in speciall, or in hypothesi, of this Festi­vall. Indeed in his practicall Catechisme, hee hath undertaken the vindication of it, from all these three charges, but more largely, the two first there; aad here more of the last, that of Riot; we shall consider what he saies, in order.

First to free the Festivall, from the charge of Willworship, he proceeds two waies.

1. ‘In respect of those, who retain the u­sage of it, they observe it in obedience to the Lawes of the Church, and so it proceeds from obedience to Superiours, a duty of the 5^th. Commandement.’ This argument should not have had the first place, but the second, in a just method. The Doctor should first have proved that they that instituted the Festivall, had a lawfull power to do it; be­fore he proved them that observe the usage, to be innocent. For may not Papists plead the same argument, for observation, of not onely their Holydaies, but of their invocati­on [Page 150]of Saints, adoration of Images, and the Masse it selfe. ‘They do it in obedience to the Lawes of the Church, and so it proceeds from obedience to superiours, Vid. Ap­pend. a dutie of the 5^th Commandement.’ But to the particulars we say many things. Pract. Ca­tech. on 4. Comma­ndement. 1. Did he not a little before found the Times or daies designed to publick worship, upon the equity or morality of the 4^th Commandement? Hear what he saies, of the Importance of that 4^th Commandement; ‘It is a designation of Time, for the speciall performing of Gods publick worship,’ and a­gain, ‘It is not onely lawful, but necessary to set apart some times, for Gods service,’ he means by that Commandement: Then say I, if the 4^th Commandement, do necessarily re­quire a designation of some Time, for wor­ship (private as well as publick; for so hee resolves, in answer to the next question there) does not the same Commandement as necessa­rily require the observation, or sanctification of that Time, but it must be reduced to the 5. Commandement? Let him remember what he saies, in his Treatise of Will-worship, Sect. 4. ‘If the matter of the command were before commanded by God, 'twere then no longer obedience to the Law of the Ma­gistrate, but onely to God.’ The application is easie, and I adde; must God be beholden to men, either for the designation, or observation of his due Time, by a duty from the 5^th Com­mandement? [Page 151]What if Superiours be so pro­phane, See Sab­bath. Re­devivum at large these things. as to set apart no time for Gods wor­ship, or not to enjoine and require the obser­vation of that Time, is every man free, to observe some, or none, at his pleasure? what if there be no Publick Worship? what if a man be and live in places where neither Time nor Publick Worship, is appointed by Su­periours, is hee now at libertie, to take all Time, as his own? so it seemes, by this Doctrine; if men observe Times, Lords day, and others, onely as a dutie to Superiours in the 5^th Commandement.

2. He takes for granted, that the Designa­tion of the sufficient Time, due and necessary by the 4^th Commandement, is in the power of men, Church or state; which we say, belongs onely to God.

3. He also supposes, that the Church or State hath power to Sanctifie a Time, ‘so that it must not ordinarily be mixed with prophane and common uses,’ which wee think, God onely can doe.

4. He also takes it as granted, that the Church may designe, as little, or as much, as few or as many Times, or Daies, as they shall think fitt, and that ordinarily, ‘in every week, or month, or year, without Sperstition, as an act of piety,’ which we suppose they cannot do, without prejudice to the 4^th Commande­ment, and to Christian liberty; seeing the bur­den [Page 152]of Jewish Holydayes is taken off, by Christ, and we reduced to the 4^th Comman­dement, as for one day in seaven to be holy, so for our allowance of six daies, for our own works. The result of this answer is this, that they that retain this usage of the Festival, as a day made Holy by the Church, or state are both injurious to God, in usurpation upon his prerogative, in the 4^th Commandement, and also guilty of Willworship, in holding up a Worship, not commanded by God, against the second Commandement.

2. ‘In respect to those who first instituted it, without command from others (in whom onely it is called Will-worship) they are free from guilt too. 1. because among the Jewes some Feasts were instituted, that of Purim, and of the Dedication, without command &c. 2. Freewill-offerings of this Nature, are to be the more, not the lesse acceptable, for being voluntary.’ To this we say, in ge­nerall, it may be Will-worship to observe what is commanded by others, as well as to insti­tute worship, without a command; In speci­all, to the first reason, the Feasts instituted by the Jewes, we shall speak anon, here, sect. 29. To the second, of Freewill-offerings, wee say.

1. These Holydayes of mens Institution, are not like those Freewill-offerings of the old Law, as we have shewed, upon his Trea­tise [Page 153]of Willworship, sect. 29.

2. We add, it is not in the power of men, to institute any worship, not commanded by God: and is flatly against the second Commandement: But these Holydaies, are by him, made parts of Worship.

3. Suppose the Jewes should have made more Holydaies, yearly, than God comman­ded, would they have been accepted? should they not have heard, who required these at your hands? wee may guesse by their Fasts which they appointed; God instituted one Fast onely, once a year; upon the Expiati­on day: They, in their captivity, appointed more, in the 5. and 7. month yearly; but what acceptance found they? see Zech. 7.5. ‘when yee fasted and mourned in the 5. and 7. month, even those 70. years, did yee at all fast to me, even to me?’ And may not Pa­pists, who have a Saint and an Holyday, all­most for every day in the year, be justified by this arguing? Hath it not a great shew of wis­dome, Piety, Devotion, to devo [...]e most of their time to God? Are they not their Free-wil-offerings, the more acceptable, because voluntary, and uncommanded? Let no man say, they dedicate those daies to Saints, and Invocate the Saints, &c. and that makes them abhominable: But suppose none of those, but the Holy daies be (as the Church of England expressed herself) devoted onely [Page 154]to the honour of God; but yet esteemed as more holy, aad as a Worship of God; and more acceptable to God, because voluntary: even these, and that other, that its done with­out command of God, will denominate them Will-worship and so odious to God. And so much for that.

Secondly, he comes now to vindicate it from Superstition, and saies; ‘ [...] signifies Supestitum cultus, worshiping of Daemons, or soules of dead men; but its lit­tle lesse then blasphemie, to number Christ with them, &c.’ To which we say: For the words [...], and Superstition; wee have considered it in his Treatise of Supersti­tion; and have found him granting the sense of them to be farre larger, than the Worshiping of Daemons: And wee have proved it rather to signifie any false, Superradded worship, not commanded of God, A Nimi­ety or excesse of Religion. as Super statutum, a­bove the Law of God: In a word, any false worship of the true God; which is exemplified in many particulars there: amongst which, this is one, ‘In placing the worship of God, or more holinesse, in things, times, places, &c. then God hath placed in them.’ Wee shall consider what he saies to vindicate this Festivall, from it.

1. ‘The Birth of Christ, is a mercy of such excellent quality, that it can never be over­valued, &c.’ This is granted; But to In­stitute [Page 155]a day as Holy, without command of Christ, for an Annuall commemoration of this, is above the power of any Church, and a Superstitious presumption: and withall needlesse; considering that the Lords day, (which includes the commemoration, not onely of his Birth, but his Resurrection, and the whole works of our Redemption by him) was instituted by himself, or his Apostles, by him authorized and inspired, for this very end; & comes about once in every week. To li­mit it therfore to one day in a year, to remember that Mercy, is not an exaltation, but a dero­gation from it. If this were done, on his owne designed Day, wee need not fixe ano­ther day.

2. ‘The exercises done upon the day, are acceptable duties any day, therefore upon this.’ True, but then any day, whereon these duties are done, is as holy a Day, as Christ­mas day: or if he think, the duties are more acceptable for the Dayes sake, or for the vo­luntary dedication of it by men, I feare they will be so much lesse acceptable to God, and no better than Superstition.

3. There may be excesse and Superstition in setting out a day every year, as Holy, as a woship of God, as Super statutum: where God requires but one in seaven as Holy, for men to command more, is too much pre­sumption: His reasons against it are invalide.

[Page 156]1. ‘Because a dutie cannot be performed without time;’ True but without a set, a fixed holy time, it may: Here's a fallacie, from time as a naturall and necessary adjunct, of an action, to Time, as Holy, as Worship. Which yet is not observed by the Doctor; For he, with others, seemes to hold Time in the 4^th Commandement, to be onely an Adjunct of worship, as of any other action; but we think Time in the 4^th Commande­ment, is a part of worship: And this I think they do make it, in this present case: For they doe not onely make the duties, praying, praising, preaching, &c. a part of wor­ship, Sees. 48. (which they are every day, when they are performed) but the very Dedication, and observation of the Day it selfe, to be a voluntary oblation, a Freewill-offering, an honour and service to Christ; as wee shall hear.

2. ‘Abraham (saies he) rejoyced to see this day and the Angells rejoyced on the ve­ry day, &c.’ So would we, if wee knew the Day; but this does not prove, that they in­tended to set that day apart as Holy, with­out command from Christ: the Lords day being appointed for that end.

3. The abstaining from labours, is partly, though not onely the excesse; for it makes it ne­cessary, as a duty of an Holy day, when God hath not made it necessary having allowed 6 daies for mens own works: & though Rest be [Page 157]agreeable to holy duties, Festivities and Fast­ing daies, of Gods command, yet then it pre­supposes a Command of God for those Duties and Daies: Or if the Time be onely an Ad­junct of those duties, then Rest is necessary onely naturali necessitate, not moralj; because no man can solemnly for any time wait upon God in holy duties, and his labours too. But this is necessary any day, when holy duties are performed.

4. For the 25^th. day of December to be the day of Christs birth, wee shall speake to it hereafter, ad sect. 36. Onely wee observe what he saies, upon the mistake of the day: ‘That the mistake will be very pardonable in those, who verily think, they are not mista­ken; They doe perform the businesse of the day, as compleatly and substantially on a mistaken day, as on the true one: and the excuse of blamelesse ignorance, will wash away greater errours than this, if an er­rour.’ Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists Doctrine of veniall sinnes? It puts me in mind of a subterfuge of Bellarm. and others, when we object (upon their owne confessions) that there may be danger of I­dolatry, in the Sacrament, if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body of Christ: They answer, ‘There is no danger of it, to one that fimply beleeves it is, and worshiping after his wonted manner? [Page 158]For in such things, humane certitude is sufficient; So Jacobs lying with Leah instead of Rachell, ignorantly, was not guilty of a­dulterie, &c. This is, (saiesacute Chamier) not to take away Idolatrie, but to stupifie the Idolater;’ can any ignorance be blame­lesse against a Law of God, or wash away an Errour without the blood of Christ? Would not Christ have revealed the very day, if he had intended the day to be kept holy, as a wor­ship of himself? But I shall put him a case. Suppose the Jews had mistaken the day of the week for the Sabbath, or the day of the month for the Passeover, had they not sinned because they thought they were not mistaken? Had the ‘business been as compleatly and sub­stantially performed, on a mistaken day, as on the true one.’ When the very day was as strictly commanded as the business it self? Let him consider it.

I shall here insert the judgement of the lear­ned Chemnitius, who, though he allow the observation of this, and other Festivals (as a Lutheran) with a reservation of Christian li­berty, Exam. Conc. Trid. p. de diebus Fest. p. 265 without necessity of obligation, &c. yet he notes no less then thirteen wayes or kinds of Superstition, in Papists observation of Holy daies. We note some of them.

1. ‘In placing Holinesse in the dayes, which God hath not placed in them.’

2. ‘Esteeming the services then done, bet­ter [Page 159]and more holy, and acceptable, then if done on other dayes.’

3. ‘Placing the worship of God on them, in ceasing from labours, and frequenting of Churches.’

4. ‘Forbidding of labours on those daies when they hinder not the publick Wor­ship.’

5. "In the Necessity of observation.

6. ‘In the multitude of them. To which may be added, that’

7. ‘They discriminate persons, to be more or lesse holy, as they observe or neglect them.’

‘And lastly, as more grace and blessing is expected from such voluntary, uncommand­ed observances.’

Now how far many men amongst us, are guilty of all, or some of these kinds of Su­perstition, it remains to discover.

First, for placing holiness in them equall with the Lords day, and above other dayes: It appears both by mens words and deeds. By word, in calling them Holy daies, and equall­ing them with the Lords day, See Sect. 59. To be esteemed above o­ther daies of the year, &c. consecrating it from common to sacred uses. as both of the Churches instituted. The Doctor himself, sect. 20. calls this Festival most sacred; and sect. 24. tels us, ‘The day hath been observed, if not much more, certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year, &c.’ And so it was, [Page 160]in all Cathedrals at least, with more solemn services; with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day; on which, sports were permitted, but "no touching cards, or dice that day, Sect. 77. being (more then law­full) pious in it self. Ibid.

Secondly, not onely the services, but the observation of the day also, was esteemed an higher piece of service than that of the Lords day; more acceptable, then commanded worship, because more voluntarie. So the Dr. often.

Thirdly, Sect. 59. An obla­tion to God in honour to him, &c. Treat. of Wilwor­ship, sect. 29. See sect. 59. people may not without offence to God fol­low their lawful vocations on that day. Rest is made an oblation to God. placing the worship of God in the observation of the day, as a voluntarie ob­lation, and parallel with the Freewill-offer­ings in the Law (which the Doctor takes spe­ciall notice of, * were parts of Gods worship) ‘Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ, in the service and to the honour of Christ, &c.’ Sect. 28.

Fourthly, Forbidding labours on that day, with greater zeal, and severer penalties than on the Lords day: It was held and accord­ingly censured, as more Piacular, to worke upon this day, than on the Lords day.

Fifthly, In the necessitie of the observa­tion of it; in so much as hee was esteemed no good Christian that did not observe it.

Sixthly, It became a note of discrimination of people, as more or less Religious. Just as [Page 161]the Doctor observed Willwor­ship. s. 28. of the Hasidaei, and makes it part of their Superstition, or Will­worship, ‘That they first began to add to the law of God, voluntary performances of their owne; then they made them necessary, and laid the obligation of them on others, to doe as they did, and then not being obeyed, dis­criminated themselves from all others, as the onely obedient servants of God, and so called themselves Pharisees.’ And was not this exemplified in the Institution of this Fe­stivall? At first, after an Age or two from the Apostles, some began to set up this (and other days) as a voluntary oblation to Christ, and a pious Addition to the Lords day: o­thers in time, made it necessary (as Socrates observed) and then laid the obligation of it up­on others, to doe as they did; And if they were not obeyed, they discriminated themselves from such as refused, as the onely pious and Religious men of the Times. That good Fa­ther Saint Austin was a little faulty here; if that worke was Austins: ‘All that ac­knowledge themselves sonnes of the Church observe the Festivalls of the Church cited by the Doctor §. 35.’ Serm. de Temp. 250 To which the Dr. adds ‘'Tis consequent to this, that they which ob­serve them not, disclaime this sonship, and cast themselves out of this family:’ Pract. Cat. And hear the Doctors owne discrimina­tion of himselfe and his party, by the censure [Page 162]of himselfe and his party, by the Censure of the Refusers. ‘The fastidious rejecting, or not observing the Festivalls of the Church universall, the great dayes, &c. must certainly be looked upon by every man, as an act of affected departure from the universall Church of Christ in all ages, as well as from the reformed Church of England his mother.’ Sect. 45. Which Sect. 12. he had called ‘an Act of Division and Separation from that Church of the first and purest times:’ How justly or truly, let the Reader judge, by that which hath, and shall be said. In the meane time, the Doctor hath handsomely given or taken the name of Pharisees to himselfe and his parties, as volunteeres in worship, above the law of God, and left the name of honest & mo­dest Karaej, unto others, who dare not venture to goe beyond, or before the Law, in worship.

Obj. But he starts an objection: It hath a semblance of that Mat. 5.9. ‘Teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men. He answers; Doctrines there, is the affirming a thing to be the pleasure and command of God, (as if I should put the Kings broad Seale, to a deed of my owne) but this is no waies chargea­ble on those that acknowledge this an Eccle­siasticall institution, and pretend it not to be prescribed by Christ.’ I reply, 1 Teaching for Doctrines here, is not the affirming a thing to be a command of God, (or not that onely) [Page 163]but is expounded by Col. 2.22. ‘after the commandements and doctrines of men:’ That is, men out of their wisdome, prescribe, and by their authority command such and such doctrines, either as very pious and pleasing, or more acceptable to God, as a voluntary wor­ship; not alwaies affirming them to bee the commandements of God, but holding them out as the Traditions of the Elders, as the Pharisees did. 2. Its so much more chargeable on them, (that acknowledge it an Ecclesiasti­call Institution,) as a kind of Superstition; because those Pharisees and false Teachers, (as he saies) pleaded Gods Command, for their doctrines; for what they did, in matter of worship: But these pretend onely the Chur­ches command, which is worse then putting the Kings seale to a deed of their owne: For it usurps the very throne of God, to appoint his worship; which is the highest Treason. Other things there are concerning this contro­versie, which we shall take notice of hereafter, In pract. Catechism. and now come to consider, how he can vindi­cate this Festivall, from the Riot and excesse, commonly found there; which he acknow­ledges, ‘a sin, and a greater sin in a Christian, than in a Jew, whose promises were of an earthly plenty, &c.’ To which we say.

§. 17. The Jewish promises, being for the most part of earthly plenty (not onely, for they had also spirituall promises) they were [Page 164]permitted (like children fed with milke and hony) a weeke of earthly joyes and pleasures; But the promises and exhibitions of them by Christ being all Spirituall to Christians; [...]. Chrys. Spi­rituall joyes (are as the Doctor sayes well) the "Christians eminent, if not onely portion; but these are not limited to one or twelve dayes in a year, but daily joyes, every day is a Christmas to a godly heart; "Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies, againe I say rejoyce.

§. 18. "Festivity and hospitality, (its true) are separable from riot: but very hardly; And if gluttony and drunkennesse were the prescribed worship in Heathenish Feasts; wee have found by long experience, they were the practised intertainement of this Festivall; which many yeares preaching could not re­forme. The heathenish usages in it (almost yeelded sect. 2.) as they doe imply, that the Festivall it selfe was instituted to gratifie the Heathens, by imitation of their feasts at the same time of the yeare: so God to shew his dislike, if not his detestation of it, hath fuffe­red these Humane inventions and institutions in his service, to be attended and celebrated, with the two extremes of true worship, Su­perstition and Prophanesse: we shall heare a­none, Sect. 21. ‘That in the ancient Church on dayes of Festivitie, men began to adorne themselves sumptuously to shew their pride, & to fare deliciously, to surfeting & drunkennesse.’ [Page 165]So soone these abuses got into them; and all this while for so many hundred years, could not be gotten out by all the Fathers, & Children of the Church: The spirituall dain­ties of a Christian, peace with God, and joy in the holy Ghost, (the quotidian Festivall) are free from these excesses. ‘Be not drunke with wine wherein is excesse, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to your selves in Psalmes, and Hymnes, and spirituall songs, making melody in your hearts to the Lord.’ Those that have most of these, care least for earthly joyes; and they that care most for earthly joyes, (without which the Festivitie, would be thought a time of Lent, & Fasting) (its feared) least of those Spirituall dain­ties.

§. 19. As some having left this custome of Christmas (so called) have used their liberty of Feasting at other times; which argues, (sayes the Doctor) ‘The good cheere not to be the thing disliked in it:)’ So others that keepe up, or cry up the custome of the Festivity, have taken the liberty to lay aside Hospitality and Charity, not onely at that time, but all the yeare long; which shewes it was not so much the Hospitality that they liked, as an old Custome, received by Tradition of their Fathers: which usually sticks (as Ivie to the tree) closer to carnall hearts, then any truth of Religion, or Institution o [...] God:

That good Cheer and Hospitality and bet­ter cloathes, are the attendant upon Gods Fe­stivities, is a knowne and granted truth: But the Doctor must first prove this, to be one of them Necessary or Lawfull, and then talke of better cheer and cloaths Hospitality to friends, and Charity to the poore, have time enough to be exercised all the yeare; But to make a Misers Feast, (as they say) at Christmas, and to neglect both neighbours and poore all the yeare after, is but a poore evidence of Ho­spitalitie or Charitie.

§. 20. If the Doctor will yeeld (as he seemes to doe) ‘That when the Attendant hath de­stroyed the principall, and the External part shall devoure the inward; and when it shall appeare that the excesses and vices of men, occasioned by the Christmas cheere & sports, are more considerable to the raising of Soules, than his forementioned uses are beneficiall, &c.’ That then he will beleeve there is place and season of Reformation in this particular; The time is long agoe past, when Reformati­on should have found a place and season, not onely of the excesse aforesaid, but of the Fe­stivitie it selfe, which hath ordinarily, if not inseperably been attended with such mischiefs without the least attempt of Reformation.

§. 21. When pride and surfeting, &c. got first into Festivities, in the Ancient Churches (as is confessed) the Fathers had they endea­vored [Page 167]the Removall of the occasion, the Feasts themselves, they had prevented many grievous sinnes, which to this day have been the conco­mitants of such Festivities, and had saved the Reformers of latter times much worke, which now they finde by the opposition of such as hate to be reformed. As for his ‘Discipline to be exercised only upon the riotous outward party;’ Saint Paul might have taught him a bet­ter way of Reformation; who when the Agapae, the Feasts of Charity, (begun upon good in­tentions, to relieve the poore, and testifie bro­therly affections) began to be abused to surfe­ting and drunkenesse. 1 Cor. 11. did not exer­cise his discipline onely upon the outward Rio­tous party, but upon those Feasts themselves, by distraction or abolition of them. Some man (perhaps the Doctor,) would have said; must the abuse of a laudable custom take away the use thereof? might not the Apostle have tryed other remedies, ‘to rescue a laudable custome, from an impious appendage?’ as in the next section.

§. 22. But yet see how Indulgent and ten­der the Doctor is, in his Reformation: ‘1. The eating and sporting part, that neede not be abolished, save onely in case of great and generall abuses. 2. Nor then, till the abuses are not onely so great, as decernible to out-ballance the good uses, but also so gene­rall, that the whole Church in a manner runs [Page 168]madding into those very great abuses.’ So that lesser and lesser general abuses need no Re­formation; this is pretty unntempered morter: but we shall assume; The abuses have beene long so great, that they out-ballance the good pretended, and so generall, that the whole na­tion, (if not the whole Church) hath runne madding after them; (besides the Superstiti­on on the Churches part, almost equall to that in the brazen serpent, of which before, and hereafter more.) Therefore its time they should be abolished, in relation to this Festivity.

§. 23. It is easily beleeved, that not onely the loosly disposed, (as he saies) will turne the Lords day, into luxury and excess; but also the superstitiously devoted to this day, who prefer it in opinion and practise, above the Lords day. These latter will not labour or play upon Christmas day, ‘no touching ei­ther cards or dice that day, as sect. 24.’ But its knowne two well that the Lords day, it was the ordinary practise of some great Rab­bies, and ceremonialists, after evening prayer (if not all the afternoone) to play at cards, and so continue till night. And this is the com­mon issue of all inventions of men, in the ser­vice of God; as to preferre them before the Institutions of God, "The Statutes of Omri are kept: So to make bold with Gods Insti­tutions, rather then their owne. They (for the most part) that are most strict and zealous in [Page 169]pleading for, and observation of the Festi­valls are commonly most remisse, and loose in observation of the Lords day.

§. 24. For this, we have the Doctors owne assertion, ‘Christmas day it self, hath been kept, if not much more, certainly as strict­ly, as any Lords day in the year, in frequent­ing the services of the Church, &c. in keep­ing at home, &c. not touching either cards or dice, that day. The excesses have been on the after daies, &c.’ To which we say; First, this is part of the Superstition we charge it with; that the day, hath been esteemed and ac­counted more sacred, ‘most sacred, the Dr. calls it, sect. 20. and observed with more, much more, or certainly as strictly as the Lords day, any Lords day in the year;’ wee think equal strictness of observation, were too much; to set their posts, cheeke by joale with Gods. But we know the ground of this, to be, that they make the Lords day, and Festivalls, to be founded on the same See sect. 57. The Lords day by the same au­thority appoint­ed: yet sect. 31. he saies the A­postles in­stituted the Lords day. Authority, viz. of the Church; and then why (as one of them sayes) should they not have equal observation.

Secondly, ‘the not touching of Cards or Dice, on Christmas day;’ (it seemes the Doct­or alowes both, on the other daies) may seem to adde to their Superstition, or Hypocrisie. Their Superstition (if cards and dice be law­full) in that they forbid them on a day, that God hath not forbidden them; which is to [Page 170]make it an holy day, equall to Gods; (besides that noted in the former section, that some would touch, and touch again, Cards on the Lords day) Their Hypocrisie (if they be un­lawfull) that pretend to worship God one day, by touch not, handle not, that they may take a dispensation or licence to offend him all the twelve daies after. For I pray, why are Cards or Dice more lawfull (I say not on the Lords day) on Stephens or Johns day, than on Christmas day? why more unholy, or un­lawfull on Christmas day, than on the other?

Thirdly, ‘that the excesses and riot, are onely on other daies after the Nativity, is a poor excuse;’ For the whole twelve daies are accounted part of the Festivity, and orde­red to wait upon it. Sect. 39. ‘That feast consisted of all the twelve daies,’ saies the learned Doctor. The Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time. sect. 63. And so the Day it selfe, is guilty in part, of all the excesses of the fol­lowing dayes; which are services fitter for the Revells of Bacchus or Saturn, or for the birthday of an Herod, than for the Festivity of a Spirituall Saviour.

§. 27. Hee now passes from the Authority of the particular Church of England, to that of the universall Christian Church; to shew upon what grounds, Festivalls in generall, & this of the Nativity in special pretend to stand and that he doth by certain degrees or steps.

§. 28. First he acknowledges, ‘it hath [Page 171]not its beginning from any institution of Christ, but either of the Apostles, or the succeeding Church.’ That it was not in­stituted by the Apostles, the same arguments will conclude, which are used against their Institution of Easter, sect. 6.1. There is no mention either of Institution or observation of it in Scripture, nor any ground produced thence, to found it on. 2. Socrates the Historian saies expresly, ‘Neither our Saviour, Lib. 5. cap. 22. nor the Apostles commanded it, (the Feast of Easter) to be observed; and there the scope was not (speaking of the Apostles) to settle any lawes for Festivall daies; but of a good life.’ If for no Festivalls, then not for this of the Nativity. And its observable what he addes; ‘There are some who think all whoredome to be a thing indifferent, that do contend for Festivall daies, as for life.’ It must then remain upon the succeeding Church. And there is no doubt but this is true, the succeding Church, did set up Festi­valls; but what Church was that? not that of the Apostles age, nor that of Apostoli­call men, that had lived some time with the Apostles: For the first Records of Fathers wee have, say not a word of any such observation. The succeeding Church, in the second or third Centurie, it seemes, began to take it up: and then Socrates addes; ‘They that re­ceived such rites, from their Ancestors, af­terwards [Page 172]transmitted, them to their poste­rity as a Law,’ And here is the most likely Originall of all Festivalls. Heare what the learned Lord Faulkland saies, in a like case, to our purpose ‘some of great authority (mo­ved by a good meaning) might thus deceive others, these thus deceived, might deceive others, till being generally spread, other good men, being loath to oppose them, for the same reason, for which others desired to spread them (thinking it an errour that would encrease piety) they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles, without contradiction.’ To which may be added what he had said, in the end of the for­mer page, ‘In those things which were be­leeved very convenient, and yet feared that unlesse men counted them necessary, they would be backward to practise, how ea­sie was it for them to be after taught, un­der pain of more danger then at first they were delivered with.’ But Superstitious rites were never without a shew of wisdome as the Apostle saies, Col. 2.23. [...] a faire pretence of Reason. And the Doctor gives us one here. ‘It being very reasonable, that those who acknowledged the receit of such a mercy from God, as was the gift of his Son, &c. should desire to celebrate the re­membrance of it, and offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ.’ But if this was so very rea­sonable, [Page 173]why did it not seeme so to the A­postles, and the Church of that and the next age? Or did not they acknowledge the receit of such a mercy? and were not their desires as fervent for the celebration of a Remem­brance of ir? &c. would not Christ himselfe respect his owne service, and honour? Nor his Apostles prescribe and institute a voluntary oblation to Christ, if they had thought it so great an honour to him? Are not all Supersti­ous inventions of men, in the worship of God, intended as voluntary oblations to him, be­cause ‘they would not have their pietie re­strained within those narrower bounds of doing nothing in the service, and to the ho­nour of Christ, but what was distinctly pre­scribed, and particularly instituted by him?’ which is expresly against the second Comman­dement by the Apostle, under the word [...] Willworship. Col. 2.23. & 18. as we have said.

§. 29. ‘Such (saies he) was the Feast of the Dedication of the Altar, among the Jewes, not instituted by God himselfe; yet the observation of it, was approoved, and confirmed by Christs presence at that Feast, Joh. 10.23.’ But there may be many mistakes in this; and not applyable to the case in hand. First, there were (which he takes notice of) three Feasts of the Dedica­tion, 1. by Solomon, 2. by Zerubbabell at [Page 174]the Repairing of the Temple. 3. by Judas Maccabaeus, for the purging of it: Now hee cannot but know, that learned men, are divi­ded, of which its here meant: Some of the first, Vide Tolet in Ioh. 10.23. some of the second; though its probable it was not meant of either of them; both be­cause, we read not, that those two were ever observed above once, and also because of the time of the observation specified, it was in winter: which the other were not. 2. But grant it of the last; yet there are reasons to think, that it was not a Religious Festivall, but civill, as the Feast of Purim seemes to be, Esth. 9.21.22. ‘A day of feasting and joy, and sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.’ And so its said of the Feast of Dedication, 1 Maccab. 4.59. ‘They or­dering it should be kept yearly, with mirth and gladnesse:’ For though it be said, ver. 56. they offered burnt offerings; yet that was ver. 53. according to the Law; and so was worship commanded. 3. If it yet be said, it was a Religious Festivall, and so observed, even the day it self; then it may fairly be sug­gested, ‘That they went beyond their com­mission, in making this feast Annuall and perpetuall, which neither Solomon, nor Zerubbabell did theirs, for ought we read.’ And so those were kept as extraordinary daies of thanksgiving for one turn, onely which we grant lawfull, to be done by the Superiour [Page 175]powers, as also we do, extraordinary daies of Humiliation: which the Doctor also ap­proves; pract. Catech. Append. p. 304.4. Ano­ther mistake is this; ‘that that Feast was ap­proved & confirmed by Christs presence at it.’ The t xt produced saies no such thing, but one­ly thus, ‘It was at Jerusalem, (marke that, not at the Temple) not elsewhere the Feast of the Dedication; and ver. 22. Jesus walked in the Temple:’ So hee did other daies, any day, when no Feast was: Hee was present in the Temple, not at the Feast; for ought appeares, which it seemes, was kept with joy and Feasting in the Citie.

§. 30. The like may be said of the Festivi­ties at marriage, which were not indeed in­stituted by God, nor need to be, being that Marriage it selfe is a Civill thing, and not Religious; and in things of that nature, if they were soberly and temperately observed, Christ was never scrupulous, to conform to the customes of the places, where he came. But Christmas day, is made a piece of ‘Religious service, and a voluntary oblation to the ho­nour of Christ,’ by others, and by the Dr. himselfe. sect. 28.

§. 31. These Instances then are both im­pertinent, what hath he ‘more pertinent to the present purpose?’ Why, that which I still expected to meet with; is his strongest plea: for this he saies, ‘It must be remem­bred, [Page 176]that the weekly Fast of the Resur­rection (the Lords day) was not instituted by Christ, or God himselfe; but by the Apostles of Christ: and that the mentions of the first day of the week, are no prescrip­tions or Law, for the observing of it, &c.’ Before we hear more, lets consider this: For first, there want not learned men, who thinke that Christ himselfe did institute or designe the day. But secondly, if the Apostles did in­stitute it (as the Doctor grants) thats more than some of his Colleagues will grant, (and thank him for it) and more than he dare pe­remptorily say, of his Christmas day: Hee speaks it doubtingly, ‘either of the Apostles, or succeeding Church.’ Secondly, if the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ, do not their Institutions carry in them, a Di­vine prescription or Law, for the observation of it? And if they instituted the first day of the week, to be the Lords day, or Christian Sabbath, do not at least some mentions of the first day, of the week, imply their Instituti­on of that day to be holy, and require with­all the observation of it? as 1 Cor. 16.2. in the judgement of some, no great Favourers of the Lords day Sabbath? Lets now hear what hee saies more. ‘If any thing of that nature (as a law) be there sought for, it will rather appear to belong to the Annuall, than weekly Feasts, So 1 Cor. 5.8. [...] let us [Page 177]keep the paschall Festivity, is annexed im­mediately, to Christ our Passeover, &c. and to that also, the [...] or Lords day, Rev. 1.10. is thought to belong.’ To which I say.

1. The vulgar Latin, authorized by the Church of Rome, (as willing to make Easter of Apostolick Institution, as the Doctor) did not find this Law for it, in this text: That renders it onely epulemur, let us keep Feast; though the word signifie also, festum diem a­gere; and is by some, no mean ones glossed thus; ‘Because on Festivall daies, there were solemn Feasts of slesh observed; Estius in locum. hence this word is used, for to celebrate festum & solemne epulum, asolemn Feast or Banquet; by allusion to the typicall Paschall Feast.’ Before him the learned Aquinas, In locum. could not find Easter here. ‘Epmlemur, scilicet man­ducantes Christum, &c. let us feast, viz. eat­ing Christ, not onely Sacramentally but spi­ritually.’ Before them Saint Chrysostom, was not so quick sighted to find a Law for Easter here, but an every day Holyday, for so he saies. ‘The Apostle saying, let us keep the Feast, he said not, because the pasch or Easter or Pentecost was present, but shewing that all or every time, is a Festivall season to Christians. And presently after, [...]: every day is a Pestivall to us: yea all our life.’ Not much unlike doth [Page 178]Saint Ambrose interpret the word, ‘Hoc est laetitiam habentes renovationis, facta vetera fugiamus, That is, having the glad­nesse of renovation, let us fly our old works,’ &c. Serm of Resurr. I adde but one thing more; The learned Bishop of Winchester, who pleads as strong­ly for this Easter Feast, as any, yet founds it not upon this text, though he had occasion to name it, but upon the Custome of the Church.

2. It is proved above, out of Socrates, that the Apostles instituted not any Holydaies (ex­cept the Lords day) therefore nor this of Easter.

3. That the Lords day Rev. 1.10. should belong to the Easter day, is the fancie of some, who of late have laboured to depresse the honour of the Lords day; contrary there­in to all the antient and modern writers. In a word, (as was said afore) the difference in observation of it, in the severall Churches, argues it not to be Apostolical. Which diffe­rence the Doctor notes in this Section.

§. 32. Its true that Aerius is by Epiphanius branded as an Heretick, for some opinions, justly, if they be truly charged upon him: But it is well known to the learned, that all is not Heresie, that Epiphanius calls so: Nor all Aerius opinions justly censured as Heretical; Epit. Hist. Cen. 4. cap. 47. as the Doctor, or any may see, if he consult with Osiander, the Epitomizer of the Centu­riators. [Page 179]And he is found, in some of those o­pinions to be seconded by divers antient Fa­thers, as is asserted by some of our learned Modern Divines, if it were not unnecessarie here to manifest.

2. As for the Festivities of the Martyrs, it is granted, they began betimes (as Super­stition ever attends Religion and Devotion) which though they were intended for good ends, yet (as things of mens Inventions do) they produced in time, much Superstition, not onely in multiplication of Holydaies, but in opinion of more Holinesse, more As the Romans did, s. 67. efficacie of prayers on such daies, and at last, flat Ido­latry, both in dedication of the daies to those Saints and Martyrs, and to Invocation, and praying to them: Which at first were onely times of commemoration, of their vitues and encouragements of Imitation of them. And this might suffice for answer to the next section.

§. 33. Yet when he would inferre, from this example of the Martyrs Festivities: ‘Where will be no reason to doubt, that so the daies of the death or Martyrdome of the Apostles themselves, were formerly solem­nized by them; and that this early, &c.’ he presumes too much upon his own reason; not able, it seemes, to produce any Testimonies, of those or former times, for such observati­ons; which I the rather take notice of, be­cause [Page 180]the Doctor uses not to wave any Testi­monie, that doth but look that way; and all­so because I observe, that the learned Chemni­tius, a man of vast reading, having reckoned up the Festivalls, Vbi supra p. 263. that were in observation, in the first four hundred years, can find none, by name, of any Apostle; but referres them to the time of Carolus Magnus, Anno 800. or at least to Constantines time; which was in the begining of 400.

§. 35. That Christmas, or the Feast of the Nativitie, was not Apostolicall, hath been made appear before; That which he now al­ledges from the Constitutions called Apostoli­call, will weaken his cause the more, because they are generally accounted posthumous and spurious. And that saying of Nicephorus, (no very credible Author) ‘that Justinus the Emperour commanded it to be kept Festival over the World.’ Shakes the Antiquity of it; For if the Apostles had instituted it, it would have had an universall observation, over the world, long before Justinus his daies, ho li­ved in the 6. Century. As for Dioclesians burn­ing so many thousand on Christmas day, wee have spoken before; and onely now note, that Nicephorus saies, it was done by Maximinus; However this was, in the beginning of the 4^th Centurie; as was said above.

§. 36. Though it be not much Materiall to [Page 181]the Festivities observation, whither it was the 25. day of December, as now of late, Sect. 61: it was kept, or some other day, (as he elsewhere saies) yet the proofes for that day, are not very cogent. Its probable they that first instituted the day, did fixe it, by some Tradition, on that day. Some, yea many things there are, that may make us doubt of the truth of our Calculation.

First, the Doctor himselfe hath given us one ground of scruple, sect. 7. when he saies, ‘Christmas day is in our old Monuments, called Midwinter day, which is the day of the Winter Solstice,’ confessed by him to be a fortnight distant, from the 25. of Decem­ber.

Secondly, it hath been the opinion of many, if not most of our learned Divines, that our Lord dyed, when he was about 33. and halfe years of age, (or near unto 34. as the Doctor saies) Now the death of Christ was at the time of the Passeover, about our March, Quaer. 1. Sect. 10. or Aprill; If now Christ died at 33. and an half; then count 6. months backward, when he was just 33. years old, and that will fall a­bout September: If at 34. compleat, then hee was born and dyed just about the same time, that is about Aprill: Thats another ground of scruple, in our Calculation.

Thirdly, the Arabick Codex of the Coun­sells, is of younger date, not able to justi­fie [Page 182]the Canons called Apostolicall, to be A­postolicall.

Fourthly, Sect. 37. the Doctor himselfe, is upon his ifs, and tis probable; ‘If it were framed by those that succeeded the Apostles, &c. so it is probable they were first intitled, Canons of Apostolicall men: Or if it were one of those which in succeeding times were added and put into that volum, &c.’ This is enough to shake the authority of those Canons, and so the Antiquity of the Festivall on such a day.

§. 39. Its very like that Twelfe day is of the same Originall, and same Antiquity with Christmas day, or not not much younger, but both of them Posthumous to the prime Antiquity. The observation of both, not much differing in their solemnitie. ‘A speci­all Holyday (imitating the custome of the Jewes, which kept the first and last daies of every Feast, daies of solemn assembly)’ so speciall and solemn, that it outwent the Lords day, as Christmas also did; which is usuall, for mens inventions to out do the Insti­tutions of God.

§. 40. But there is something that weakens the Antiquity of this Twelfe day Festivall, viz. Vide Chemnit. Prolegom. 4. p. 14. a, in Harmon. & p. 15: a. As baptized in the beginning of December. that it is not certain.

1. whence it had the name of the Epipha­nie: whither from the appearing of the Star [Page 183]to the wisemen, or from the descending of the Holy Ghost upon Christ, at his Baptisme; or (as the Doctor himself addes, Sect. 41.) "From the first appearing of Christ in the World.

2. It is made more uncertain, because Epi­phanius affirms, ‘that many orthodox Christians, in Aegipt did keep the Feast of the Nativitie on that Twelfe day.’ And the Doctor saies, hee is more inclined to the last of the three conjectures, that is, ‘that Epi­phania, signifies the day, when Christ was born in the flesh,’ as Epiphanius had said, which though the Doctor say, that it is con­futed by Saint Hierome; yet is enough to shake the Authority, of the Institution, that certainly it is not Apostolicall, nor by the Primitive purest Churches, when the name was not agreed on, in Epiphanius time; (in the fourth Centurie) nor the day it selfe distinguished, but Christmas day by some, was observed on the same day. Whither the Mag [...] came to Christ, the next twelfe day after his Birth, or that day twelvemonth, I shall not dispute; onely I shall tell the Doctor, that Cheronicus is of opinion, that they came the twelfth day after Christs Birth, and seem to have reason for it; The 41, 42, 43. Sect. 45. Harm in locum. Sections may receive their solution, from what is all-ready said.

§. 44. But now hee will put it beyond all [Page 184]question, by the testimony of Chrysostome, and other Antients; ‘out of the censuall Ta­bles of Augustus, the Registers of such as were enrolled at the Taxe, Luc. 2.1. toge­ther with the place and day of the month and year when it was done.’ This indeed would end the question concerning the day of Christs Birth, but makes yet nothing to the maine question; That Christmas (so call­ed) is of Apostolicall Institution; or of the next age. Lets hear what may be said to those Testimonies. To begin with the most anti­ent, Justin Martyr he brings the Rolls to e­vidence the place of Christs Birth, but saies not a word of the observation of the Festivi­tie of his Birthday, in his time. The like may be said for Tertullian; He alledges the Rolls, fidelissimum testem Dominicae Nativitatis: (marke that) a most faithfull witnesse of the Lords Nativity, (which Marcion denyed) not Natalis Diei testem, a witnesse of the Ob­servation of his Birthday, as Festivall in his time; or on the 25. of December: for he makes no mention of that Festivall at all, which is probable he would, if any such Custome had been then in Being. The whole weight then of the businesse must lye upon Saint Chry­sostom, who in his Hom. of the Nativity; saies, ‘We have received the day from those that accurately knew these things, and which dwell in the City of Rome.’ Suppose [Page 185]we shotld grant this Testimonie to be true and Authentick, for the day of our Lords Birth; (which yet is doubtfull, by what hath been said before, and shall anone) yet this will not prove that Antiquity of the Festivall, which the Doctor would thence conclude. For besides, that Chrysostome lived in the fourth Centurie, when the Tradition was grown to a Law, (as Socrates said) himselfe gives us occasion of scruple, by the weakness of his proofs. He tells us of a threefold demon­stration, that the Day which they celebrated, Tom. 5. p. 512. l. 23. was in the month of December, called by the Greeks [...]; as the month wherein Christ was conceived, was called [...]: Wee shall consider his Demonstrations in or­der.

1. The first is this, ‘That this Festivall was so suddenly published every where, and that it arose and flourished to such an height.’ But does the Father at all, go about to prove this? That which he saies is, ‘That the preaching of the Gospell (so I think he meanes) or of Christ, by tent makers, fish­ermen, and vulgar men, took the whole World, in few yeares, by the power of him that was preached.’ But he saies not a word, when the Feast of the Nativity first began to be celebrated.

2. His second Demonstration is from the great Taxing of the World by Augustus, [Page 186]when all went to be taxed, into his own Ci­ty: At which time Joseph and Mary going up to Bethlem, Christ was born, Luk. 2.6.7. Now the time of this Tax, was recorded in the Rolls of Augustus at Rome; and the good Father, was certified from thence, by some that dwell there, that it was in such a Month, and such a year. All this may be granted; but this proves onely the truth and time of Christs birth; but not the observati­on of the day as Festivall: Yes, may some say, with the Doctor, for the Father addes, ‘Those that lived there, did observe that very day (that we doe) [...], from their Ancestors, and from antient Traditions (as the Doctor renders the words) and sent us the know­ledge of it.’ This might well be, if we consi­der the time and Age that both they and this Father lived in, which was (as we said) in the fourth Centurie: an 100. or 200. yeares before, might be so stiled, an antient Tradition.

3. His last Demonstration, is from the con­sideration of the time of Johns conception, which was, 6. Months, before the conception of his and our Lord; as the Scripture saies ex­presly, Luk. 1.26. Now the ground of all his large discourse, is upon this Supposition, that the message of Johns conception came to Zacharias, in the month of September; from whence the sixth month, when the Angell [Page 187]came to Mary, and she conceived her Sonne, was March, and as we calculate it, the 25. day. From thence count 9. months more, and it falls to be just our December, and the 25^th day thereof. But how proves the Father, the first, that Zacharie was officiating in the Temple, in our month of December? his dis­course is very large: The sum of all comes to this: Hee takes for granted, these two things.

First, that Zacharie, was then high Priest, and secondly, That the time was, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the day of expiation, on the 7^th month, and 10^th day of the month, at which time onely the high Priest and he alone went into the most holy place. Now (saies the Father) Zacharie was at this time gone alone into the most holy place, and all the people were without praying, Luk. 1.9, 10. This he proves, because its said, when the Angel came to him, he saw him standing on the right side of the Altar of incense; which Zacharies lot was to burn, at that time: The Altar of burnt offerings (saies he) was without, and the Altar of incense within the Vail. But now, if learned men be not mista­ken, this is a great mistake in this Father. So in Ambr. in locum. For first, the Author of the Notes upon the fift Tome of Chrysostome; (Sir Henry Savill, I suppose) makes this observation upon the Fathers words, pag. 515. l. 24. [...], ‘From the premises of Chrysostome, [Page 188] no conclusion can be collected, unlesse first it be proved, that Zacharie, was the high Priest, which yet was not true: allthough this Fa­ther, nourisheth his same opinion, in other places, by what probable argument at least, led to it, I know not.’ So farre he.

Secondly, Chemnitius is confident, he was not High Priest, by many reasons. 1. Luke calls him simply Priest, and officiating in the order of his course, ver. 8. and that was, of the course of Abia, ver. 5. who was not of the High Priests line, but an ordinary Priest, of the 8^th course, of the 24. 1 Chron. 24.7.10.

2. He officiated, and burnt incense by Lot; but so did not the High Priest, but by office. Exod. 30.7.

3. The Altar of Incense was not within the Vaile, but without, and there Zacharie was ready at least to burne Incense, when the Angell stood on the right side of it. The High Priest did offer his Incense indeed within the Vail, but that was in a Censer, not upon the Altar; as is said, Levit. 16.12. but he onely took coales from the Altar of the burnt offering; and Incense from the Altar of of Incense, and put them both in a Censer, and offered it within the Vail: whereas the other Priests offered it daily, without the Vaile. Now the Supposition of the Father, being ungrounded, what he builds upon it, will be farre from a demonstration. But if all [Page 189]his proofes were good, that the month was December, and the day, the 25. of that month, whereon Christ was born; wee aske again, what is this to prove the Antiquity of the Festivall of the Nativitie? Chrysostome himself hath much shaken the Authority of the Church, Universall, in constituting it, and celebrating of it, in all ages: For, it seems, it was very questionable in his time; whither it was a new or an antient custom: Heare his own words, Tom. 5. p. 512. l. 15. in the Homilie where he so ear­nestly pleads for it. ‘I know very well, that many are even now doubtfull amongst them­selves, concerning this day; some accusing, some defending: And there is much talke every where about this day, some charging it to be new, and of late Originall, and now brought in: Other apologizing for it, that it is antient, and from the beginning, fa­mous and manifest in many places; to those that inhabit Thracia, &c.’ So that it seems, to be a Tradition indeed of some standing, and observed in many places, but not univer­sally, in Chrysostomes time, in the fourth Cen­turie: Yea questioned by many; and so no universall, much lesse, an Apostolicall In­stitution; which all this while, the Doctor hath endeavoured to make the World be­leeve.

§. 45. His conclusion then, must needs be like his premises, weak and insufficient, if not [Page 190] injurious: That, ‘the fastidious rejecting, or not observing the Festivalls of the Church Universall, the great daies, &c. must cer­tainly be looked upon, by every man, as an act of affected departure, from the Univer­sall Church in all ages; and not onely from the reformed Church of England.’ An heavie charge, if it can be proved once, as it is asser­ted twice here, and Sect. 12. before. But now, I can return him this answer.

1. That he hath not at all proved, that the Universall Church of the first Age, hath ob­served any of them; nor the Universall Church, in many after ages, hath observed all those which he hath named.

2. There was a time, when the Universall Church of some, yea many ages, and this of England among them (I meane during the time of Antichrists revelling in all Church­es) observed may more Holydaies than the reformed Church of England did observe, or he pleads for. Will he say the Church of Eng­land, and himself are guilty of an affected de­parture from the Universall Church? If the Church of England at her first Reformation saw cause, and had Power to throw away some; may not the same Church of England, having the same power, upon just the same or like reasons, cast off the rest? If he say; Hee speaks it of the Universall Church of all A­ges, and especially of the first age, wee shalll [Page 191]joyne issue with him therein; and and say, If he can prove (which I am confident he can­not) that in rejecting, or not observing, these Festivalls, wee have departed from the Universall Church in all ages; wee shall be content to let his censure fall upon us; till then, we are safe. And for a closure of the whole matter; we shall take into considerati­on his Rule, prescribed in his first Quaerie, a­bour Resolving controversies, and be judged by it. It is this. Quaere 1. Sect. 35 ‘What ever hath the con­cordant attestation of the Christian Church of the first ages (the Scripture remaining obscure, or silent in the matter) that it, was the Doctrine or practise Apostolicall, there remains not to any that now lives, any ima­ginable ground of sober or prudent doubting, or questioning the truth of it.’ This resolu­tion, and Case, the Doctor beginns with, and intends it as a Rule, applicable to all the fol­lowing cases; ‘against Socinians, and other Hereticks and Schismaticks, Sect. 40.’ Hee means, (we thank him) those that reject this Festivall, as Sect. 12. and 45. of this Quaerie, appears: But is this Rule universally true? Are there no cautions, nor exceptions? yes, three at least.

1. It must be in cases, ‘where the Scrip­ture is either obscure or silent in the mat­ter.’

2. ‘That it be not extended any further, [Page 192]than to the primitive Antients.’

3. ‘And again to an accordance of those Testimonies (without any considerable op­position) that this or that was delivered from the Apostles.’ We shall (by his leave) apply this rule, to the case in hand; and dare venture to be judged by it: First considering the Rule, and then the cautions.

And first for the Rule it selfe, we desire to know again, what he means, by ‘the Church of the first ages?’ If he take it inclusively, to take in the Churches of the Apostolicall time, while they were yet alive, wee should not stick to grant his rule to be good. ‘What ever doctrine or practise hath the concor­dant attestation of that Church,’ it was Apostolicall. The Negative whereof being a surer Rule to jvdge by; ‘What ever doctrine or practise wants such concordant, univer­sall, uniform Attestation, is not Apostolical.’ For they being all guided, by on Spirit, would all agree, uniformly, in the same Doctrine, or practice. But there are not many things so attested by the Church of that age. On the other side, if he meane it exclusively of that age, and to include onely the after a­ges, it will prove a Crooked Rule; Many Doctrines, and practises being taken up, which were not Apostolicall, but meer Inventions of men; which like a Gangreen, soon over­spead the face of the Church: And by the [Page 193]different Timing, and observation of them, proved by the best Divines not to be Aposto­licall.

Secondly, for ‘the concordant attestation, of the primitive Antients, of the second, or third Age, without considerable oppositi­on.’ (which is one of the Cautions) that this was delivered from the Apostles; I shall put in a just exception, in the words of the learned and honoured Lord Falkland; in his discourse, ‘Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome;’ who plead, the universall Tradi­tion of the Church, for their Religion, (as the Doctor does, for his Christmas.) Thus he writes: ‘If the Relation of one Pappias could cozen so farre, all the prime Doctors of the Church Christian, into a beliefe of the celebration, of a thousand years after the Resurrection, so as, that not one of those two first ages, oppose it, (marke that) till Dionysius Alexandrinus, who lived at least 250. yeares after Christ: nay, if those first men, did not onely believe it, as proba­ble, but Justin Martyr, saith, he holds it, and so do all that are in all parts, Orthodox Christians. Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition, and relates the very words that Christ used, when he taught this; which is plainer than any other Tradition, is proved, or said to be, out of Antiquity, by them (of [Page 194]Rome) If I say, these could be so deceived, why might not other of the Antients, as well be deceived, in other points? And then what certainty shall the learned have (when after much labour, they thinke they can make it appear, that the Antients thought any thing a Tradition) that indeed it was so,’ &c. The Doctors wisdome can easily ap­ply this to the case in hand. And I perceive he was aware of such an objection, and there­fore labours to prevent it, by saying, ‘That Justin Martyr, Quaer. 1. sect. 38. the prime assertor of it (thats a mistake, for he and Irenaeus also, had it from Pappias, who was their Senior) con­fesses, other Christians, of pure and pious intentions, to he otherwise minded.’ But for that, let him answer his friend the Lord Falk­land, Lo. Falk. reply p. 73. who saies, ‘That Justin Martyr saies, that in his time, all (all) Orthodox Christians held it, and joynes the opposers, with them who denyed the resurrection, and esteems them among the Christians, like the Saduces among the Jewes: and again saies, It found no resistance, in above two Ages, by any one known, and esteemed person.’ And what now is become of the Doctors Rule?

Thirdly, the Rule applyed to the case in hand, will prove, (more then the Doctor in­tended) a light to discover his Christmas far [Page 195]from an universall, Apostolicall usage; For.

1. The Rule must hold, onely in things, "wherein the Scripture is obscure, or silent: But for Institution of Feasts, (particularly this of Christmas) the Scripture is neither obscure nor silent. For the Scripture is cleare, and speaks aloud against it; both in the Law, the fourth Commandement, which requires peremptorily, but one of seaven for God, al­lowing six for mens occasions; and also in the Gospell, which clearly speaks, against obser­vation of daies (except the Lords day, the the Christian Sabbath) whither Jewish, Hea­thenish, or Christian. Festivalls of old, were part of the Ceremoniall yoke, upon the Jewes, and therefore to give the Church a power, to institute Holydaies, is to reduce the yoke a­gain.

2. They have not the concordant Testimo­nie of the Primitive Antients; neither of the Apostles themselves, nor of those that lived, in the same age with them, as of Ignatius: nor in the second Centurie, of Pappias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, &c. which may the better be believed, because the Doctor brings not one instance of any of those, so much as men­tioning this Festivall, except out of the Con­stitutions of the Apostles, falsely so called; which Isodorus (by Gratians report of him, [Page 196] Dist. 16.) saies, ‘Where known to be cor­rupted by Hereticks, under the name of the Apostles,’ This Chemnitius further proves, because the Fathers of the first Ages, doe not so much as intimate any such usage in their times. ‘No mention there is, amongst the most antient, of celebrating the Feast of the Nativitie, till Basills, Nazianzenes, and Chrysostomes time,’ who lived not till the fourth Centurie at least: They say indeed, it was in practise, in some places, before their time; but that might be, some 100. more or lesse years, and yet be farre from the first ages of the Church, or being Univer­sall.

3. Another of the Doctors cautions is, it must be attested, ‘without any considerable opposition.’ But this, his Christmas found in the fourth Centurie, as we heard, Sect. 44. In Chrysostomes time, there was a consi­derable opposition; ‘Many being doubtfull, many charging the Festivity, with novelty, and as of late brought in:’ For a conclusion, then of all; the Doctors Censure is too harsh, and the Character too hard, that is set upon the refusing of it. ‘That it hath nothing but the Novelty and contempt of Antiqui­ty to recommend it unto any.’ We shall onely put him in mind of two places, in his owne writings. The one here, at Sect. 35. the other [Page 197]Testimony of Nicephorus; ‘That Justinus the Emperor first commanded it to be kept Festivall over the world.’ Then say I, it was not an Universall usage in all ages of the Church (which the Doctor hath so long pleaded for) for Justinus lived in the sixt Century: I know what hee answers to it: ‘That belonging onely to the edict of the Em­perour for the universall observation, doth no way prejudge the Churches, whither A­postolicall, or Primitive Institution of it.’ Its enough to prejudge the universall obser­vation of it, in all Ages; and consequently it is not Apostolicall.

The other place is in his Practicall Cate­chisme, where he confesses, pag. 181. ‘It was not so­lemnized universally, till about 400. yeares after Christ.’ How often hath he charged us, with departure from the Universall Church, in rejecting, and not observing the Festivities of the Universall Church: &c. Sect. 12. and in that Sect. 45. I hope, upon second thoughts, hee will be more mode­rate in his Censures; and find that his rash zeale for the Authority of the Church his Mo­ther, and Tradition of the Antients his Fathers, hath carried him beyond the bounds of Reason, and Religion.

§. 46. The remaining part of the Doctors discourse, is spent in answering 16. Quaries, [Page 198]propounded by another; But most of what hee hath said, may be taken away, by what hath above beene answered: I shall not put my sickle into another mans Corn; but leave it to the Author of them, or some friend of his, to vindicate them.

§. 74. The Doctor now, for a conclusion, drawes out some Quaeres, of his owne to be considered and answered, by him, that shall undertake this businesse: ‘as a shorter way, to question and debate the truth, or supposed certainty of some of his own principles:’ For an essay, this

§. 75. ‘Whither it be not lawfull for the Church, either nationall, of one, or Uni­versall of all parts of Christendome, especially of that age nearest the Apostles, of the first and purest time, to take upon it to institute one or more daies, upon any speciall occasion of some eminent mercy of Gods, toward the whole Church, to be used yearly, in acts of Christian piety and chari­ty, Chemnit. Exam. de dieb. Fest. Ames. Me­dul. in 4. precept. D. Riv. in Exod. 20. p. 206. 6. by all the Children of that Church, and to expect obedience from them.’ But un­der favour, this is not the question now be­tween us; For not onely the Lutherans, but even the most rigid Calvinists, and Noncon­formists (as they were called) do grant, ‘That the Church, or rather the State, hath [Page 199]power, to set apart any day to the acts of piety, and charity, not onely upon ex­traordinary eminent mercies, but upon ordinary occasions,’ provided 1. They be not too many, for number; nor 2. Im­posed as necessary, to the prejudice of Christian libertie. Nor 3. made parts of the worship of God: and other like cau­tions and conditions, by them prescri­bed: And if the Superiour Powers shall appoint such daies, so qualified, this may secure both those that institute them, and those that observe them, from any crime of Superstition. Its more then pro­bable, that they who first appointed those daies, in memory of the Martyrs, in their particular Churches, intended no more, but on such a day yearly, to com­memorate, the Faith and constancie of those holy Sufferers, as with thanks to God, for his Graces in them, so to the Incouragement of other Christians, to imitate their virtues; But after Ages soon grew Superstitions, in their Number, in their use and end: ‘Dedicating daies to to Saints; Invocating them in their prayers; Making the observation of them necessary: The daies themselves holy, holyer than other daies, than the Lords day: placing the worship of God [Page 200]in them; expecting more acceptance, more blessing from the services of those daies, as a voluntary worship.’ These a­buses were foreseen by the Reformed Churches, and thereupon, either the Daies were rejected altogether, by some; or cautioned against by others; especially, by this Church of England; as all doe know. But when this last generation of misdevout men, began to exceed in the honour, estimation, and observance of those remaining Festivalls, especially this of Christmas; equalling them with, if not preferring them above the Lords day, (as was said before) &c. then those that were conscientious, and tender of the Worship of God, beganne to oppose such inchroachments upon it, who formerly did observe the daies; and others, that thought they had Power in their hands, did lay them aside, upon these reasons. It were too long, to instance the particular Superstitions, not onely of the vulgar people, but even of many Di­vines, discovered in their Practises and Discourses against the Lords day, and for the Holydaies: None that I know, or have met with, have manifested more waies of being Superstitious, in this Sub­ject of Holydaies, than the Doctor in [Page 201]this discourse of Festivalls; as hath beene made appeare, at the end of the six­teenth Section; to which I referre the Reader, and proceede to his second question.

§. 77. ‘Whither such an antient In­stitution of the Church of Christ, by name, the anniversarie feast of Christs birth, though it be not affirmed to be com­manded by Christ, or instituted by the Apostles, or (in it selfe considered, without respect to the Institution) abso­lutely necessary to the being of a Church; yet being thus (more than lawfull) pious in it selfe; proper in respect of the ground, primitively Catholick, (if not Apostolick) in respect of the Institu­tion, may be lawfully abolished.’ &c. Wherein the Doctor takes for granted, these things, which he hath not proved.

1. That this Festivall is of so antient Institution, ‘as primitively Catholick, if not Apostolick Seeing it hath beene made appear to be, neither 1.’ Apostolicke, or 2. a Primitive Institution, nor 3. Of Catholick observation, till at least the 400. yeare, by his owne con­fession.

2. That it is ‘more than lawfull, pi­ous [Page 202]in it selfe.’ When at most, it is but a thing Indifferent in its use, and in its Abuse, by Superstition and Willworship, more than unlawfull; impious

3. That such an Antient Institution (if it were proved so) abused to Superstition and profanesse, may not by a particular Church, or Christian Magistate be law­fully abolished, without regard to the Universall, the Universall Church being never like to meet, or if they could (the greatest part being Antichristian) unlike ever to consent to the abolishing of it. Till the Doctor shall prove these things; a further answer is not need­full.

And so I come to his last question, which is this: ‘Whither by any obligation of conscience it appear necessary to be thus abolished, on this onely ground, of truth, because the following dayes have sometimes beene mispent in riot &c. by some wicked men.’ But here again, the Doctor takes for granted, what hee hath not proved, viz. That the onely ground of truth, or onely true ground of abolish­ing this Festivall, was the Riot commit­ted, in the following daies; whereas the principall charge against it was, the Super­stition, and Willworship, attending the ob­servation [Page 203]of it; though the Riot and propha­nesse of the following daies, might justly adde an Aggravation to them; and call for a Reformation.

And now, for a conclusion of all, wee shall make bold, to propound some questi­ons to the Doctor, or any that shall under­take this cause; And they are these.

1. ‘Whither any Church, nationall, or universall (since the Apostles) have power to institute any Religious Ceremo­nies as parts of worship, &c. (as it is propounded, Sect. 9.) and in particular, this Festivall of Christmas, making it a part of Divine worship, the day equally holy as the Lords day, &c. and not be Su­perstitious.’

2. ‘Whither if any Humane Institu­tion in the worship of God be abused to Superstition, and prophanesse, it may not, ought not to be abolished.’

3. ‘Whither the Feast of Christmas in speciall, hath not been abused to riot and excesse by the most part of vulgar people, and to Superstition also, by them, and many Divines, and by the Doctor himself.’ if Superstition be an excesse of Religion, as we have proved it to be.

4. If so, then, ‘Whither it was not ne­cessary for such as have power in their [Page 204]hands,’ to abolish such an Institution; as Hezekiah did the brazen Serpent (which had a better Originall and Author) for the Superstition and Idolatry cleaving to it; and as Saint Paul did the Agapae, the Lovefeasts for the prophanesse crept into them.

D. Rivet in Exod. 20. pap. 205. a.

Hic existimamus Regulam illam habere locum: ‘Adiaphora non necessaria, hor­renda Idolomania polluta, esse abo­lenda.’