Diatribe Triplex, Text 3

Diatribe Triplex · Text 3

p. 123OF 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 p. 124Sabbath 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 The reaſon is, becauſe the Apoſtles afterwards repealed thoſe Jewiſh cuſtomes.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 p. 125fiderations 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 p. 126adherent 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. 1.181 Pet 1:18then of the very Inſtitutions of God.

p. 127§. 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, p. 182and 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, p. 129Nor 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 p. 130be 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 p. 131may 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.

p. 1322. 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.

p. 1331. 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.

p. 1343. 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 p. 135of 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 foreign, 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 p. 136what 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 p. 137us 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, p. 138as 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 onelyonly 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 p. 139furtherance 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 foreign, 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 p. 140Church 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 onelyonly 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 p. 141do. 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 p. 142unwholſom, 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 p. 143New 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 144§. 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 p. 145this 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 onelyonly 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; p. 146the 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:Acts 25was 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 p. 147reaſon, 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 onelyonly 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: p. 148But thoſe that endeavoured to Reforme the abuſes of Superſtition and prophaneſſe, are the men onelyonly, 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 p. 149Will-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 onelyonly their Holydaies, but of their invocation p. 150of 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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? p. 151What 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 152of 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 onelyonly 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 p. 153of 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly p. 154to 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; foreign 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 foreign, 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 p. 155a 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 1561. 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 157agreeable 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 onelyonly an Adjunct of thoſe duties, then Reſt is neceſſary onelyonly 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. OnelyOnly 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? p. 158For 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. 265without 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 p. 159and 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, p. 160in 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 onelyonly 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 p. 161the 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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. 250To 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 p. 162of 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 onelyonly) p. 163but 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, for they had alſo ſpirituall promiſes) they were p. 164permitted (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; foreign. Chryſ.Spirituall joyes (are as the Doctor ſayes well) the "Chriſtians eminent, if not onelyonly 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. p. 165So 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 onelyonly 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:

p. 166That 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 onelyonly 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 p. 167the 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly in caſe of great and generall abuſes. 2. Nor then, till the abuſes are not onelyonly ſo great, as decernible to out-ballance the good uſes, but alſo ſo generall, that the whole Church in a manner runs p. 168madding 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 onelyonly 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 p. 169pleading 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 p. 170make 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 onelyonly 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 p. 171not 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 p. 172tranſmitted, 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. foreign 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, p. 173why 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 foreign 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 p. 174the 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.John 10:23ſome 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, onelyonly which we grant lawfull, to be done by the Superiour p. 175powers, 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 onelyonly 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, p. 176that 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. foreign let us p. 177keep the paſchall Feſtivity, is annexed immediately, to Chriſt our Paſſeover, &c. and to that alſo, the foreign 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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, foreign: every day is a Peſtivall to us: yea all our life. Not much unlike doth p. 178Saint 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. p. 179And 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 180the 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 onelyonly 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 p. 181the 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 p. 182the 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 p. 183to 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; onelyonly 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 p. 184queſtion, 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 p. 185we 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 foreign; as the month wherein Chriſt was conceived, was called foreign: 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, p. 186when 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 onelyonly 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) foreign, 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 p. 187came 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 onelyonly 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. foreign, From the premiſes of Chryſoſtome, p. 188no 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 onelyonly 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 p. 189his 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 p. 190injurious: 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 onelyonly 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 p. 191joyne 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. 35What 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, p. 192than 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 onelyonly 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 p. 193different 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 onelyonly 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 p. 194Rome) 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 p. 195from an univerſall, Apoſtolicall uſage; For.

1. The Rule muſt hold, onelyonly 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, p. 196Diſt. 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 onelyonly put him in mind of two places, in his owne writings. The one here, at Sect. 35. the other p. 197Teſtimony 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 onelyonly 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, p. 198propounded 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.Exod 20by 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 onelyonly the Lutherans, but even the moſt rigid Calviniſts, and Nonconformiſts (as they were called) do grant, That the Church, or rather the State, hath p. 199power, to ſet apart any day to the acts of piety, and charity, not onelyonly 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 p. 200in 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 onelyonly 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 p. 201this 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 p. 202in 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly ground of truth, or onelyonly 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 p. 203of 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 p. 204hands, 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.

FINIS.