The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 9

The Good Old Way Defended · Treatise · Section 9

p. 203SECTION IX.

Of Holy Days of Humane Institution.

I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions: and proceed to his Third Chapter; wherein he pretendeth enquire into several new Opinions. The first of which is, that we are against the Observing the Holy Days, of CHRISTS Nativity, Resurrection, Assention; and Commemorating the Piety, Faith, and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture. We do not denie the Charge, so far as being against the Anniversaries observation of these Days doth reach. That this is a new Opinion we denie: though at the same time we confess the contrarie Practice is verie old: yet we maintain, that no such thing was injoyned, or practised in the Apostolick Church; which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to. He is too confident when he sayeth, it is certainly a new Doctrine; for we are certain on the other hand, that there is Warrant p. 204for it in the Word of GOD; as there is for no new Doctrine. He sayeth, it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church, Antient and Modern, Reformed, and Unreformed: and other harsh Words he is pleased to run us down with. This is Passion, not Reason. A modest Dissent from a Church or a Person, though of the greatest Veneration that is due to Men, is no flying in their Face. And if he will needs call it so, our Apologie is, if they flie in the Face of the Holy Scripture, we chuse rather to Differ from them, than with them to flie in its Face: but we put no such Construction on the Opinions, or Practices of other Churches, Antient or Modern. I am not without hope that it may be made appear, that he and his Complices, flie in the Face, both of Antiquitie, and of the Reformed Churches, by their Opinion about Holy Days; and Differ from them more than we do, which will appear when we come to State the Question: which he hath never minded, though he engageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth. This is Andalatarum more pugnare, to Fight in the dark. We are now but in the Threshold, considering the Opinion of other Churches. He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva, and that with Calvines dislike, For Calvines dislike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magistrats of Geneva, he Citeth two Epistles of his; which he doth not distinguish by their Numbers; so that I cannot find them: not being willing, nor at leisure, to turne over the whole Book for them. But I shall more distinctly point, him to other two of his Epistles, wherein, though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion, he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatists. They are, ad Mons. Belgradenses, Ep. 51. p. 112. edit: Hanov. 1597. and Mansoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. 520. I say the same of our Reformers, and of the French Protestants.

§ 2. I shall now address my self to fixing of the true State of the Question. And 1. We do not, with the Anabaptists in Germany (for some Anabaptists in this differ from them) and with the Petro Brusiani, cited by Parae in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. out of the Life of Bernhard. lib. 3. cap. 5. disowne all Holy Days. The Lords Day we owne, as of necessity to be observed, being of Divine Institution. Pardon a small Digression: I see no ground to think that Peter Bruce was of this Opinion: all that I find ascribed to him, Cent. Magd. 12. cap. 5. and that even by Petrus Cluniacensis, his Antagonist, is, Die Dominica, & aliis, putabat licitum esse vesci carnibus. The Centuriators wish, Utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent, ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret, quam ex illis qui in p. 205defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt. He was one of these famous Witnesses for the Truth against Antichrist, who went under the Name of Waldenses, Albigenses, &c. It is like he might disowne other Holy Days; but there is no ground to think that he disowned the Lords Day. 2. We maintain it to be unlawful, to observe the Jewish Holy Days; I should bring Arguments for this: but I think our Adversaries will hardly contradict this Assertion: the Lord having of old appointed these Days, and all the legal Rites, for Prefiguring Gospel Mysteries; and the Apostle expresly condemning this Observation: Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16, 17. where they are expresly called Shadows of Things to come. 3. We hold, that not only these Jewish Days are not to be observed as such, or on Jewish Principles; but the Days ought not to be set apart as Anniversary Holy Days, on account of Decency, Policy, and Order, in the Christian Church. All the Arguments will have place here that were used by the Primitive Christians against them who keep Easter on the same Day with the Jews. 4. Our Adversaries are not one among themselves about observing the Holy Days: some count them more Holy than other Days, and hold that God's extraordinary Works have sanctified some times, and advanced them, so that they ought to be, with all Men that Honour God, more Holy than other Days. So Hooker Eccles. Polic, lib. 5. §. 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that these Days are Holy, and to be observed, antecedently to the Churches Institution. Others of them, are of a contrary Opinion, Couper Bishop of Galloway, in his Resolution of some Scruples, about the Articles of Perth, which are set down in the History of his Life, p. 8. of his Works; hath these Words: in my Mind, no King on Earth, no Church may make a Holy Day; only the Lord who made the Day, hath that Prerogative: only he sheweth that a Day may be set apart for Preaching, as the Birth Days of Princes are for Publick Rejoycing, &c. Our Author hath not told us, which of these Opinions he owneth. 5: It is one Question, whither a Day may be set apart for Commemoration of some Mystery of our Religion, by Men; and as a part of Gods Worship. And another, whither such Days may be set apart for Worshipping God, merely as a piece of good Order and Policy. The first the Papists are for: the other most of our Prelatists owne: though some of them differ little from the Papists in this Matter. 6. The Question is not, whither a Day may be set apart occasionally for Religious Worship: that is, when any special Providence giveth occasion for Fasting and Humiliation, or for Thanksgiving p. 206and Rejoycing: seing in that Case, there is a special Providential Call to that Solemn Work: but, whither a Day may be set apart to be observed constantly, and as it recurreth every Year. The one maketh a Difference between that Day of the Year, and other Days; and exempteth it altogether; and constantly, from Civil Use; the other doth not so; the one maketh a Difference among Days; the other maketh the Difference only in the Works, or Dispensations of God, which occasioneth such Work on that Day, and not on another. All that the Church doth in the one Case, is, whereas the present Providence calleth to the Work, as it is expressed, Isa. 22. 12. The Church only determineth the Circumstance of Time; which must be done: in the other, the Church determineth more than a necessary Circumstance, viz. That there shall be such a Solemnity: Which the Lord hath not injoyned, neither do we doubt, but that the Church may appoint recurrent Days for Solemn Worship; to wit, while the present Providence that calleth to such Work continueth. Weekly, or Monthly Fasts may be appointed under a lasting Calamity or Threatning. 7. One Question is, whither any Anniversary Holy Days should be allowed, or may be appointed by Man: another, whither any are to be allowed in Commemoration of the Saints: for some are for the great Days; as they call them; which respect Christ, and our Redemption; such as the Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension, and some others: who are wholly against Holy Days that respect only the Saints. 8. It is a Question, whither Days may be Dedicated to Saints: as the Papists do: and another, whither the Commemoration of Saints may be made on set Days: this last our Brethren are for: though it will be hard to separate these two: of which afterward.

§ 3. I shall now set down our Opinion, and wherein we differ from others. And first, we maintain, that God hath instituted the Observation of the Weekly Sabbath, as a part of that Religious Worship we owe to him. I do not expect that our Brethren will directly, and expresly controvert this: though some of them teach Doctrine not very consistent with it: which belongeth to another Head than what we are now upon. Only I take notice, that they who are most for observing other Holy Days, do usually shew least Zeal for the strict observing of the Lords Day, either in their Principle, or their Practice. 2. I assent, that the Lord hath not instituted, under the Gospel, any other recurrent Holy Days, nor enjoyned the Observation of them. If p. 207any think otherwise, they must prove what they affirm. 3. The Church hath no Power to institute, or injoy the Observation of any recurrent, or Anniversary Holy Days, for Religious Use, without a special and present Occasion. 4. Any Days that the Church setteth apart occasionally, for Religious Work, are no further Holy, than that Holy Work is the Design of their Appointment: they have no Sanctity in themselves; nor can Men impart it to them. 5. Though we are far from severe Censuring, either Ancient or Modern Churches, or Persons, who are for some of these Holy Days; yet we cannot be of their Sentiment in this: nor look on these Days as indifferent things, as some of them do. 6. That the Reader may be undeceived about the Opinion of the Reformed Churches, which our Author talketh so much of, and blameth us for differing from them: he may know, that our Episcopal Brethren are at greater Distance from them, in this Matter, than we are: for they condemn the Saints Holy Days: so Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. so Calvin, in both the Epistles cited, §. 1. The Helvetick Confession of Faith, cap. 24. in Cor. Confess. p. 54. Baldwin citeth Danaeus disowning all the Holy Days, in these Words; Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo, judicoque; quotidie nobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. Turretin Theolog. Elentic. loc. 11. cap. 15. Though he allow Liberty enough for observing of the Holy Days that relate to Christ; yet he determineth the Controversie about Holy Days far otherwise than our Episcopal Brethren do: I shall transcribe his Words: after he hath told us that we ought always to remember Christ and his Benefits, and should do it in the Word and Sacraments; he addeth, sed (questio est) an ad singulorum illorum beneficiorum & mysteriorum recordationem certi quidem dies festi, Deo sacri, annuatim recurrentes, a Christianis quotannis celebrandi sint? quod nos negamus. he also denyeth these Days to be more Holy than others, or a part of Gods Worship, or to be Celebrated sub ratione mysterii. Markius also Compend. cap. 12. §. 17. He condemneth the Difference of Days that was brought into the Church, from the first Christians yearly Commemoration of the Martyrs. When my Antagonist hath duly considered these things, I hope he will not find cause to represent us as so widely differing from the Reformed; and himself so near to them, as he would now make the World believe. I do not pretend that they are generally, wholly on our Side, in this; for many of them look on the Observation of these Days as indifferent; in which we cannot assent to them. But I p. 208know of none of them who imposeth them with such Rigour, and talk so highly of the necessity of observing them, being recommended by the Church; or of the Religion that is in this Observation, as the Episcopal Party in England and Scotland do. Our Brethren do also stand by themselves, in their keeping of Saints Days: and in the Number of their Holy Days; which in England is greater than the Number of these that God injoyned to the Jews; forthe Primitive Church, at some Distance from the Apostolick Times, may be they may have some Countenance there; yet these Saints Days were not then so so injoyned, and urged, as they urge and impose them, nor made such a Yoke to the People; as may be gathered from Socrates histor. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 22. whose Words are, foreign, &c. I am of Opinion, that as many other things crept in by Custom, in diverse places, so the Feast of Easter prevailed among all People, from a certain private Custom, and Observation; in so much that (as I said before) not one of the Apostles hath any where prescribed to any Man, so much as one Rule of it; it was observed, not by Canon, but of Custom; and afterward he taxeth some, who count Fornication indifferent, and contend about Holy Days, as it were for Life and Death: they despise the Commands of God, and establish Canons of their own. I shall add the Opinion of our Reformers, and the Protestant Church of Scotland, in her first State, and that out of the hist. motuum in regno Scotiae, under the borrowed Name of Iraeneus Philaleth. p. 264, 265. libro primo disciplinae, cap. 1. Censetur; Festa Nativitatis, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniae, &c. Apostolorum, Martyrum, & B. Virginis Mariae penitus abolenda esse, cum eorum observatio nullibi a Deo in Scripturis imperetur; rogandus itaque Magistratus, ut obnitentes civili authoritate coerceat: in Synodo Nationali Edinburgena, anno 1566. Major illa Confessio Helvetica in omnibus comprobatur, excepto Articulo de diebus Festis: porro cum Reformatae Helveticae Ecclesiae, licet Festa illa celebrent, a Superstitione Ponttificia sibi caveant; evidenter colligitur, omnem omni modo dierum illorum observationem rejectam fuisse ab hujus Ecclesiae Reformatoribus; quorum Vestigia presserunt Posteri; nam anno 1575. in Synodo Nationale male acceptum fuit; quod Pastores quidam & Lectores in tractu Abredonensi Populum convocarent ad Conciones & Preces publicas diebus illis Festivis; ac in mandatis datum a Synodo Nationali, anni 1575. Ecclesiarum Visitatoribus, ut interdicerent Pastoribus Administrationem S. Coenae temporibus illis Festivis; quasi majoris efficaciae sint Sacramenta tum celebrata. Denique constans haec fuit Pastorum omnium sententia; solum diem Dominicum Festivum esse & Deo sacrum. Referebant alii Regem Jacobum in Synodo Nationali anni 1590. publice Deo gratias egisse, p. 209quod Rex esset in Ecclesia totius Orbis purissima; imo quae Genevensem ipsam superet, nam (inquit) colunt Genevenses Festa Nativitatis & Paschatis, qua autem authoritate id faciant, ipsi viderint. This might allay our Brethrens fierce Zeal for their Holy Days. We judge not others that use them without Superstitious Opinions (though we cannot well separate the Practice of them from External Superstition) and we desire the like Forbearance from others, if we cannot use them; for which I shall now give some Reasons, before I consider my Antagonists further Discourse on this Subject.

§ 4. Our first Reason is, these Days were not instituted by Christ, or his Apostles, nor did they injoyn them to be instituted, nor give Power, or Allowance to the Church to do it afterward: Ergo, there is no sufficient Warrant for them. And it cannot be rationally accounted for, that either the Church should impose, in the Matter of Religion especially, or People should be obliged to submit to, what hath no sufficient Warrant. That they were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles, is beyond doubt: our Adversaries do not pretend that they were: for there is no apparent Ground for such a Thought; and if it could be made appear, the Case were changed: for then they were not the Days that we Debate about. That Christ and his Apostles have given no Warrant to the Church to make such an Institution, we must believe, unless our Adversaries can instruct this Warrant by plain Scripture, or sufficient Consequence from Scripture, or strong Reason, (if Reason can have place in such a Matter of Fact) if it be Answered, the Church hath Warrant from Scripture to appoint what is for Edification, and for Decency and Order; and these Holy Days are such. Ergo. I Reply: it is denyed that the Church may appoint whatever is thought fit for Edification; the Lord hath appointed sufficient Means of Grace, and of Edification; and the Church must not devise new Means for that End; but faithfully use the Means that he hath appointed: or if any think that the Church may appoint Means of Edification above what Christ hath appointed, both they accuse Christs Appointments for that End as insufficient, in the Way of outward Means: And they are to shew what Warrant the Church hath for so doing. Beside, that Means of Mens devising are not like to be effectual for Edification, if Means of Gods Appointment be not so effectual, as is hinted, Luke 16. 30, 31. If Moses and the Prophets, Gods Means, cannot perswade one to believe; the Preaching of one risen from the Dead (a Mean that a Man contrived) p. 210could not do it. As for the Decency, Order, and Policy, that they alledge to warrant the Church to institute Holy Days; these are a necessary, or needless Decency, &c. If this last, there can be no warrant for what may effect it; if the first, the former Argument recurreth, that God, by his own Institutions, hath not sufficiently provided for the Necessities of his Church. Again, if we should grant that the Church hath Warrant to provide for all that is necessary to make the Worship of God decent, &c. They must also shew us a Warrant to judge what is so necessary; if it be alledged, that the Holy Days are thus necessary, either they must instruct this, and shew us that Scripture, or Nature hath made them necessary, and that the Ordinances of God are undecent, disorderly, &c. without them; or the Church doth so determine because she will: and in that Case we require a Warrant for such Lordly Domination over the People of God. If it be further Answered, that the Church hath the same Warrant for appointing these Days, as for appointing occasional Fasts, or Thanksgivings. Reply, Not so. For the Lord himself, by his Providence, calleth to these Exercises, to be Solemnly gone about, on such Occasions: but doth not tell us whither the Fast shall be on Tuesday or Thursday, in this Week, or the next: here is a Circumstance of Time, which must be determined by Men; Nature it self maketh it necessary, supposing the Providential Call of God, to the Work on that Occasion: it is not so with the Holy Days: there is no special Providence occurrent, which calleth to these Solemnities at one time, more than at another. Obj. Why hath the Lord left the determining of the time of these occasional Solemnities to the Church, and not of the other also. Ans. Because the former could not be determined in Scripture, for all Times, Places, and Occurrences, without Swelling it to a Huge, and Burdensome, and less Useful Bulk; the latter could easily have been determined in the Bible; it is actually done in the Old Testament; and if the Lord had thought such a Determination needful, it had been easie to do it also in the New Testament.

§ 5. Our second Argument: Either the Apostles had Warrant from God, to institute these Days, or not; if they had not, how is it imaginable that the Rulers of the Church, who came after them, had such Power granted by God: Though some Exalt Episcopal Power to a Monstruous, and Absurd Height, yet I think none of them have the Confidence to say, that the Bishops, in that do, what the Apostles, in the same p. 211Case, might not do. If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power; then I propose another Dilemma; either it was for Edification, that such Days should then have been appointed, as much as it was in after times, or not; if it was, the Apostles were Negligent, or Unfaithful, in not appointing them, which is Blasphemy to think, seing in all these things, they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God: if it was not, our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward, which was not in the Apostles Days. I know not what can be Answered to this Argument, except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days, for these Appointments; many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days, falling out afterward Reply, The greatest Things, for which these Days are kept, were then past: Christs Birth, Circumcision, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, the Effusion of the Spirit, also, the Conversion of the Apostles, Stephens Martyrdom; and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these: and for the Martyrs that came after, the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured: if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen, and of James, this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages; which is a good Warrant for our Practice: whence we may rationally conclude, that they had not received this Usage from the Lord, seing they did not deliver it to the Churches, neither by Precept nor Example: if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent, and Religion in its Vigour. Reply, The Apostles knew they would grow old things, and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them, would be needed. Beside, Religion was fallen into some decay, and all the Means that ever were needful, were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage. Again, some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days, were controverted, and violently opposed, both by Heathens, and Apostate Christians, even while the Apostles lived: and therefore they thought of, and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths, but never minded this.

§ 6. Our third Reason is, the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days, under the New Testament, as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy, and unfit for the Christian Church State, Gal. 4. 9, 10. Col. 2. 16, 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended, because it is injoyned by the …ord himself: therefore we must understand p. 212this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord, that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand, 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days: these were not to be observed, being now abrogated, and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled: and the Observation was, on the Matter, a denying that Christ is come. Reply, It is not to be denyed, that here are directly, and especially meant, the Jewish Holy Days: but that they are not the only Days forbidden, I prove, First, The Prohibition is general, and without Limitation: therefore no Limitation can be made by Men, but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture: which we do not find, except of the Lords Day. Non distinguendum est, ubi Lex non distinguit: Secondly, Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden, and no other put in their Room, we have Cause to think that no other are allowed, more than they are: when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished, others are substitute to them: when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside, another was put in its Place, by Divine Authority, as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture; because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath. But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished, other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament, are not appointed in their Place, (whatever the Papists say to the contrary) and when the Jewish Days were laid aside, none other were brought in their Stead: because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices, nor Holy Days under the Gospel. Thirdly, if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days, which once had the Stamp of his own Authority, is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned, but are the pure Devices of Man? Fourthly, These Days are forbidden on general Grounds, that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord; for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements, that is, they have no Force to Edifie, being destitute of Divine Authority, and consequently of the Divine Blessing, And Col. 2. they are Comanded, not to let Men Judge them, that is impose on them, injoyn such things to be Observed, and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not. So Hamond in loc. again, their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie, and will Worship: and it is said of all these Observations (among which these …oly days were) that they were after the Commandments of Men, and their Doctrines, p. 213and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head, CHRIST; this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church, and betaking themselves to other Law-givers. (I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this? now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days, do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant. Another Answer to our Argument is, the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command, and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ; but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them. Reply, This is to make a sense for the Text, not to find it in the Text it self: they are simply forbidden, without any such restricted sense. Again, if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use, it is strange that Men should revive that again, and bring it again into the Church for another use: especially, when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means, and not these, for that other use: he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come: and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come, and what he hath done for us: but our Episcopal Men are not content with that, but they will revive some of the old Jewish days, as Easter, &c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come. Answer Thirdly, they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did, with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship, or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days? yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church. Reply, The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered. All the Order, Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them; as the Patrons of them do, on the Matter, confess; when they tell us that these, and all the rest of the Ceremonies, are in themselves, and antecedently to the Churches imposing them, indifferent. Beside, not the Principle only, or the Opinion that Men have about these Days, is condemned in these Scriptures; but the Practice it self.

§. 7. Our Fourth Reason is, the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People; which the LORD doth not allow, Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways. 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion (we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things) but that of Christ; to have him for their p. 214only Law-giver, James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church, but to declare his Laws; and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them. Wherefore, when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed, and no more; if Men will enjoyn moe Days, they make Laws of their own, and bring the People under their Yoke; which is not Christs. And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this: The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them, and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks: and it is as much Bondage, if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs: now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes. 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments: this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie, and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed; because the Religious, Solemn Work (on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow) is determined by the Lord, and intimated to us by his Providence; the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day, rather than that; If it be said, that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes; why not then for Religious Reasons. Answer, Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things; though restraint from Work is the same in both; so is not the occasion; the one must be chosen by the LORD; the other may by Men. Beside, that Magistrats must have some good Ground, for such Restraint; otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD, though obeyed by the People, I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion; that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by. A symbolizing with the Papists, without Necessitie. It is Superstition, being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned, &c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath, the LORDS Day, as a Name of distinction from other Days: but it could be no distinguishing Name, if the Nativitie, Circumcision, &c. were all Dedicated to our LORD; for every one of these were the LORDS Day, as well as it; And therefore, when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day, we could not know whether it was Christmass day, or Easter day; or Good Friday, or the first of January, the Circumcision Day, or some ordinary first day of the Week.

p. 215§. 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days, and against our Opinion. He sayeth, p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption, with all possible Zeal, gratitude and Solemnity. If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends: we shall lay our hand on our Mouth, and not mutter against them; but if they be so Appointed by Men, we ask quo warranto? CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends: particularly, the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption: this do in remembrance of Me: if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them. But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption. I shall further Debate this with him, by and by. Mean while I observe, that he is beyond many of his Brethren, who disown the Mysterie of these Days, and all Religious Worship, in the Observation of them, and set them no higher, than that they are for Decencie, Order, and Policie; And himself, some times when it is for his purpose, seemeth to be of the same mind, as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself; from the Abuse of them; which alas, is too notour, and gross, and frequent. His Answer is, so may the most Holy Exercises, and the highest Mysteries; and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion, or so universally useful in Nature, against which some such Objection may not be started. I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading, and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both, should so superficially Propose, & so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on, and his Answer so fully refuted. Doth he not know, if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies; that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises, Mysteries of Religion, or things universally useful in Nature; yea, or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small, should be Abandoned because Abused: The Abuse should be Reformed, and the thing retained: But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things, which have no intrinsick Necessitie, nor Command of GOD to injoyn them, these we say, (and have often Proved it) should be removed, when grosly, and frequently Abused; and that the Holy Days are so indifferent, I think he will not deny, if he do deny it, he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them, not only against the Presbyterians, but also against his own Partie, who reckon p. 216them among the Indifferent things, the Regulating of which, is in the Courches Power.

§ 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk, (as he calleth him) about this verie Matter; and particularly, about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity, which we call Christmass. The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book, from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it, will find, that the most part, and the most material Passages, and what is most Argumentative in that Book, to this purpose, are passed over in silence: and but a few things touched. The first thing he is pleased to Notice is, I had said, the Question is not about the Commemoration of it, (the Nativity of CHRIST) but whether this Commemoration should be by an Ordinance of GOD; or by an Appointment of Men. The occasion of this State of the Question was, he had asked; might not the Church take care that this Glorious Mystery should not be forgotten. I Answered, no doubt it might, and should: and I had mentioned the Word, and Sacraments, as GODS Appointment for this End; on which followeth the Question above set down. His Answer in this Book, to that Question is long, and made up of a great many Sentences, which I cannot well see the Connection of, nor pertinency to the present purpose (may be another may.) He first sayeth, what the Church doth in this is agreeable to the Will of GOD. If it be so, our Controversie is at an End: and I will crave him Pardon for all I have written on this Subject, But it might have been expected that this Assertion, (which is the Determination of our Question; which he fairly beggeth) should have been Proved; but he thinketh not fit to attempt that. But instead of Proof, we have it over again, in other and moe Words, (for he wisely considered, that saying it once, and so barely was not enough to perswade the Stubborn Presbyterians) And if (sayeth he) the manner of Commemoration (viz. by an Anniversarie Solemnity) be the immediate result of Ecclesiastical constitution, the Church medled wi…h no more than what was left by our Saviour, to her Power to determine. Still I desiderate Proof for what is so confidently Asserted; and is indeed the foreign. If he can shew, by any good topick, that CHRIST left such a Power to his Church, we shall Debate no more with him: that should in all reason Command our heartie Assent. What followeth I cannot refute, for I cannot understand it (which, may be, is my Dulness.) It is, things indifferent in their Nature do generally carry in them the Advantages, and Encouragements of Necessary things. If this be true, it is Mystical: it may p. 217possiby have a hidden Sense; If I may adventure to guess at this Riddle, he supposeth, the Appointing of Holy Days to be an indifferent thing: I cannot reconcile this with what he sayeth in the former page, that they were originally appointed to Communicate the great My…eries of our Redemption, with all possible Zeal, Gratitude and Solemnitie. What is conducive to so great Ends, and is for so necessarie Uses, I see not how it can be in its own nature indifferent; far less can I make it consistent with what he saith in his Apologie for the Clergie p. 41. 42. do not we see that all Nations agree in this, that publick Solemnities, and Anniversarie Festivities are necessarie to the Beeing and beautie of Religion: how he will reconcile necessarie to the beeing of Religion, and indifferent; is beyond my Capacitie. As little can I understand how that can be indifferent in its own nature which hath in it (that is in its Nature) the Advantages and Encouragements of a necessarie Thing. I wish he had Instanced in some of the Things comprehended under his large Word generally, which have some Advantages and Encouragements in them. Many Instances may be brought to the contrarie; as, whether he walk a Mile on foot; or Ride on Horseback, or go in Coach: whether Tuesday or Wednesday be appointed for the Weekly Sermon: whether Sermon shall begin on the LORD'S Day at Nine or Ten of the Clock; whether the Pulpit stand toward the East or West; &c. what Advantage or Incouragement of necessarie Things is in anie of these? If he will shew us anie Encouragement or Advantage of any necessarie Thing (and if that Encouragement or Advantage to that necessarie Thing be it self Necessarie) to be in the Holy Days; we shall look on them, not as the Appointments of the Church; (for it is to be supposed that this Necessitie is Antecedent to that, and doth not flow from it) but either of Divine Institution, or of Natural Necessitie: neither of which, I suppose, he will ascribe to the Holy Days.

§. 10. Another mystical Sentence followeth; GOD will have our Obedience approved in indifferent Things, as well as Necessarie; for Necessarie Things are approved for their intrinsick Excellencie; the other are by way of Consequence and Relation. Here also AEdipus himself might be puzled to find out the Sense. So far as I reach his Meaning, I shall Examine what is asserted I verie well understand that GOD will prove our Obedience to Himself in indifferent as well as in necessarie Things, (if there be anie thing necessarie antecedentlie to His will) but that our Obedience to Man, must be so Proved, or that our Obedience to Church-Rulers is approved of GOD, when they enjoyn indifferent Things, in p. 218the Matters of Religion, to that I cannot assent; and if I could, I should not scruple the implicite Obedience that some require. Is it by Chance or by some inward Byasse that this Author stumbleth so often into Popish Principles? Before I assent to him in this, he must Prove that the LORD hath given the Church Power to injoyn indifferent Things which are parts of Religion, as the Holy Days are: next that we are obliged to Obey in Matters of Religion, what GOD hath left indifferent, but Men have thought fit to impose. What he Meaneth when he saith, the other (indifferent Things) are by Consequence and Relation: doth yet more puzle me. What is that Consequence, or what the Relation, for which indifferent things are approved as Necessarie Things are for their intrinsick Excellencies: this I cannot guess at. He cannot Mean that they are approved, because they are only consequential to Necessarie Things: for if that Consequence be Necessarie, it maketh the Things to be Necessarie, and to cease to be indifferent: if it be not Necessarie, but the Necessarie Things may do well without them, it can no way make them more approved than if there we no such Consequence. For their Relation to Necessaries Things, how can it make them approved? if this he Mean, and if this Principle hold, the Papists have a notable Foundation for the Holiness of their Relicts; and indeed, on this Principle it is Built: they are therefore Holy, because the Persons to whom they were related were so: may not relation transfuse a Holiness into his Coat, his Shoe, or what else was about him, as well as either the Birth of CHRIST transfuseth a Holiness into all the recurrent Days of all Years that Answer to that Day on which he was Born: or if he make the Relation of these Days to be to the Holy Exercises performed in them: shall everie time and everie place where there hath been Preaching, Prayer, and Celebration of the LORD'S Supper, &c. be ever after that Holy and Approved of GOD: this is strange Doctrine. He goeth on: when we Commemorate the Nativitie, we Worship GOD and adore His Love that sent His Son into the World: and the Church Commands that this should be performed with all possible Solemnitie at some stated and fixed Seasons: all this is true: But how doth this Prove his Point; we question the Churches Power to appoint fixed and stated Days for this Commemorating Worship, and maintain that Christ hath appointed Ordinances of his own for this Commemoration, and he telleth us, the Church hath Commanded it also to be done: and there is an End.

p. 219§. 11. He next bringeth somewhat like Reason: the Church may appoint these Seasons (which are but Circumstances of time) as well as the Jewish Church appointed the Hours of Prayer: at which the Apostles were present, Acts 2. 15. and 3. 1. for which there was no immediate and express Institution of GOD, but were kept by an Appointment and Custom of their own. Ans. 1. He doth injuriously insinuate that we require an immediate and express Institution for the Days that we will observe; where have we ever said so? let him Prove an Institution, either by express Words, or good Consequence, or Apostolick example; or by anie good Medium, and we shall acquiesce. 2. The Appointing Holy Days is more than determining a Circumstance of Time. It is a sequestering of these Days perpetually from Civil, to Sacred Use; it is to give them a relative Holiness, as far as Mans power can reach; by making a Connection between them and the Solemn Exercises of Religion: it is a Dedication of such a part of our time to GOD; so as we do not Dedicate other Days of our time; and so making a difference among Days; which we think can only be done by Divine Authoritie: the Apostles, Rom. 14. 5. counted it a weakness in some, who did no more than what our Author putteth off thus slightlie; what they did was, foreign. They distinguished days one from another; and that with respect to Religion; which could not be without judging one of them better, and more Holy than another; and so it is Expounded by Erasmus, and Vatablus: Eslius turneth it, eligit unum prae alio, is this no more but determining a Circumstance? Beside, the Lord hath not left it to us to determine Circumstances of Worship as we please, but when it is Necessarie that a Circumstance that relateth to Worship must be determined, and it is not determined by the Lord in Scripture, in that case Men may, and must Determine it; but this is not the Case in hand: there is no need that a stated Day be determined for Commemorating anie of the Mysteries of our Redemption; seing the Lord himself hath appointed his own Day for that End, and his Ordinances as the Means of that Commemoration. 3. For the Jewish Church, appointing hours of Prayer: It is to be Considered, that Prayer was joyned with the daily Sacrifice. And these Hours of Prayer were appointed by God, not the Church. It is true, Maimnoides giveth account of three times of Prayer that the Jewes were obliged to Observe everie day, and on their Festivities they added a Fourth: but this was in the degenerat times of their Church; as the Papists have their Canonoical hours; Maimonides indeed telleth us that p. 220Esdras made Forms of Prayer, and they appointed the Number of Prayers according to the Number of the Sacrifices: but it cannot be Proved that these Constitutions were of that Antiquitie.

§. 12. He further reasoneth thus, p. 171. there is something Analogical in the Christian Church to the Free-will Offerings of the Jews which are not the less Acceptable because Voluntarie: but rather the more, as long as they are within the Circle of these things which he hath Commanded. Ans. If we give Scope to our fancie to frame Analogies, and make these a Warrant for modes of Religious Worship, there shall be no end of devising new Ways of Worshipping God, while yet Men keep within the Compass of what is Commanded, as to the Substance of their Service. In this case the most fancieful Contriver, and Inventer of what is New, fine, and gaudie, shall be the best Divine: and there shall be no end of Contention: for what this Bishop thinketh a fine way, and Anological to what is Commanded, another shall think unfit: We have cause to bless the Lord that he hath given us a more sure Rule for our Direction, even the Scripture. 2. These Days Invented by Men are not Analogical to the Free-will-offerings of the Jewes: for these were Commanded in general, and a Warrant given for them, and Directions given how they should be Managed. Levit. 1. 3. and 3. 16. and manie other places: nothing of this can be said of the Holy Days; People may Pray as oft as they will, and so may the Church meet as oft as she will for Religious Service, as the Jews might Offer as oft as they pleased: but the Jews were never allowed to set up stated Days, and to separate them from other Days for their Free-will-offerings: no more are Christians allowed to do so with respect to Prayers and Praises. 3. If Modes of Worship, or stated Days for them, be not less Acceptable because Voluntarie, there could be no such thing as Will Worship; which yet the Scripture condemneth: and it were not Worshipping GOD in vain to Teach for Doctrine, the Commandments of Men (viz. about Religious Worship) which is contrary to Ma…th. 15. 9. I confess, Prayer and Praises are not the less accepted because Voluntarie: for these are Commanded Duties: but to separate Days from Common use to these Exercises, and that without special occasion, and constantly, when GOD hath appointed a recurrent Day for that end; this is not Commanded in general, nor in particular: nor hath any Analogie with the Jewish Free-will-offerings: this we Assert, not to be within the Power of the Church: if he think it is, he must Prove it. He sayeth, the Doctrine of p. 221Presbyterians is contrary to all Christian Churches, and he telleth us of Citations to this purpose by Durellus: No doubt there may be many Citiations brought of Churches differing from us: but such an universal Assertion cannot be Proved by a Thousand Instances; if we can bring one instance to the contrary: and for this we adduce the Apostolick Church: I have also §. 4. mentioned Churches, and Learned Men in them, who are as far from his Opinion, in the Matter of Holy Days, as from ours. I shall now add some more: Luther. lib. ad Nobilitatem Germanicam, Art. 5. consultum esse ut omnia Festa aboliantur, praeter diem Dominicum. And lib. de bonis operibus, Utinam (saith he) apud Christianos nullum esset Festum nisi dies Dominicus. That Calvin was really against them all, though for Peace he yielded to some few of them, I have shewed above. Bucer, in Math. 12. p. 118. hath these Words, Ferias alias, sive Dei-pari Virginis, sive Christi, sive Sanctorum Nomine commendatae sint, optarem abrogatas universas. And he bringeth strong Reasons for his Opinion, while he addeth: Primum enim constat, nullo Dei verbo invectas: ubi enim in Apostolicis Scriptis aliquid de Natali Christi, de Epiphania, & similibus? facile crediderim Zelo Dei a veteribus introductas, qua Ferias Ethnicorum, seu clavum clavo pellerent, sed quis dicet hunc Zelum secundum Scripturam, qui omni adeo verbo, & Exemplo Scripturae careat; moreque rationem humanam secuta est: Alting. in Exeges. Confess. August. Art. 15. p. 93. giveth account that the Lutherans objected to the Zuinglians, that they had no Holy Days except the Lords Day. I hope here are some Christian Churches on our side: Danaeus (beside what I have cited out of him before) hath these Words, Eth. Christian. lib. 2. cap. cap. 10. Nobis hodie eosdem dies observare nihil necesse est. And after, Itaque, neque dies illos colere, aut observare necesse est, aut operae proetium. And below, Apparet quanta superstitio postea inducta sit, & multitudo istorum dicrum Festorum, ut omnino tolli satiùs sit. Thes. Salmur. in a Disputation on this Subject, by Capellus, commends these Churches, which in their Reformation, did quite abolish them, (it is evident then, that such Churches there were: and we are not contrary to all Christian Churches) and he giveth his Reason, in religione enim, quando vel tantillum a Dei praescripto disceditur; & homines aliquid sibi licere volunt, aut putant, omnia tuta timenda sunt, siquidem experientià comprobatum est, a quam exiguis, & imperceptibilibus initiis, mirus facius sit in Idololatriam, & horrendam superstitionem in Ecclesia Pontificia progressus. And after, Ut satius esse videatur, bono aliquo utili, sed minus necessario carere, quam ex illius usu incurrere in grave grandis alicujus mali periculum. Here I confess this Author doth not expresly condemn the p. 222Holy Days as simply unlawful, yet he is far from allowing them: Rivet on the fourth Command discourseth to the same purpose. I find also cited, Constitutiones Dordraci, 1578. Where are these Words. optandum esset libertatem sex diebus operandi a Deo concessam in Ecclesiis retineri, & solum diem Dominicum feriatum esse? What is said may sufficiently evince that Presbyterians in this, are not so Antarctick to all the World as he imagineth: though it is their Principle to take the Apostolick Church, and none other for their Guide; yet with due respect to all other sound Churches, both Ancient and Modern.

§ 13. He passeth over in silence not a few of the most material Passages, and what is truly Argumentative, in the Book that he hath now under Consideration; and pitcheth on two Instances that he had given, and I had Answered, of Anniversary Holy Days instituted by the Jewish Church; whence he pleadeth that the Christian Church may do the like; the first is the Fasts mentioned, Zech. 15. The Answer to this was given, 1. God disowned these Fasts, and if it be alledged that they were disowned, only on Account of Neglect of Seriousness in Managing them, that must be proved. His Reply is, He leaves us to Guess what Word of Scripture he buildeth this Fancy upon. I crave him Pardon for that Omission; himself supplieth it, p. 173. it is verse 5. Did ye Fast to me. He saith, that imports only that they were Careless, &c. in their Publick Appearance before God; and sheweth that as much, or more hath been said of Solemnities that Christ himself appointed; all which we deny not; neither do I doubt that so much is imported, yea and mainly aimed at, in that Passage. Their Profaneness and Irreligiousness did bear more Bulk in the Prophets Eye than their Superstition. I indeed call for Proof that no more is here reproved, but their wrong Way of going about these Fasts. And I give this Reason for that Demand: though it is a Negative that is to be proved, as he stateth it. He bringeth an Argument from a Practice which God expresly disowneth. It is evident that there was Sinful Evil in this Action; he must then prove that there was also some Good in the Action; otherwise he can draw no Argument from it to prove its Acceptableness; the Management of this Solemnity was Evil; that cannot prove these Holy Days to have been accepted; for on that account expresly they are disowned: the Controversie is about the Authority by which they were appointed; to wit, the Churches; we say that could never make them Good: he saith it doth: here is then an Affirmative that he must prove: But to please him, for this once, I shall p. 223prove, that these Fasts are disowned on this account also: though it be not here expressed. This Action is simply condemned, viz. their Fasting: the Lord looketh not on it as done to Him: therefore all the Sinfulness that is in it; is to be lookt on as the Ground of this Disowning: that want of Divine Institution was one part of the Sinfulness of it, I prove, because in general (under which this Particular is comprehended) all Religious Acts, or Solemnities which have no Divine Authority are condemned, Matth. 15. 9. and by other Grounds that I have above laid down. If there be two or more Sorts of Immorality in one Action: no doubt both are condemned in that Action, though but one of them be expressed; as in this Instance, Jer. 7. 31. in that Infanticide, there was Idolatry, and most Unnatural Murther, and also Will-Worship, the Action is simply condemned; but only the Evil of Will-Worship is mentioned, which thing I Commanded not, neither came it into my Mind: will any say that the other Evils of that Action are not condemned; nor the Action for them, because they are not mentioned in that Place. Wherefore, from an Action so positively condemned, he can make no Argument for its Lawfulness, (which is our Debate about the Fasts) unless he can, aliunde, prove, that this was no Fault in that Action, that it had no Divine Authority; for to suppose it, is to take for granted what is the Matter of our Debate. From all this it appeareth, that he hath no Ground to say, that if the Jews had had regard to the Moral Institutions, their Solemn Fasts had been acceptable to God, though appointed by Humane Authority: neither is there Cause to reject this Exposition as new, seing there is such Ground for it. He next taketh notice of another Answer given to his Objection, The Prophets had many things of greater Moment to reprove, and insist particularly on, that they contented themselves to comprehend such things as these under general Reproofs. Hence he infers, that these were not particularly reproved. What Advantage were it to him, if this were granted; is it not enough that they are clearly condemned in general general Terms. But this Consequence we will not yield: it only followeth, that other things of more Moment are, in some Places of Scripture, mentioned, when these are not. But there are particular Reproofs of these in other Places, as hath been above shewed, and will more appear anone.

§ 14. I shall now adduce another Answer to his Argument; which might take off its Force, supposing that these Fasts were not condemned by the Lord, (which yet I do not grant) but approved. They were p. 224appointed under a present Calamity, and Providential Call from the Lord, viz. the Captivity, and Desolation of Judea, and the Temple. Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion; and they only determined the Circumstance of Time, which was not determined by the Lord, nor any other Appointment was made by God, which might super…de this recurrent Solemnity. Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion, appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them, now that Calamity was over. Some might plead long Custom on the one hand, others with more Reason, might plead, that the Cause being taken away, the Effect should cease; as Calvin, on the Place observeth: This cannot be said of our Holy Days, which are appointed to Perpetuity; and without any determined End; and also for the Ends these are designed for, (I mean our Holy Days) the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances, and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies. I add yet another Answer, these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time, and State of the Church, which cannot afford us a binding Example; and we have no Ground to think, that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time, these Fasts were continued: what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary. I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned, which he next examineth, p. 175. &c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day, that God had not instituted. His Answer to this is, that this is to Disguise Scripture History: Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry, and Worshipping the Calves; but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God, and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem, he ought not to have been blamed. To this I Reply, that this is a very surprising Answer, and I know not that any beside himself, hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate: for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God; and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church. And if this Doctrine be received, no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church, before Christ's Incarnation, or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced, can be condemned; let them appoint and do what they will, only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value, or Necessity of these Devices of …n: And if this Principle be good, why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem, p. 225not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed, not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution. Further, Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason, that the Time was Devised (foreign Created) of his own Heart, he made it of nothing, there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority. Now according to this Learned Author, Men may Create as many of these Days as they will, provided they design to Worship the true God on them. It is a strange Dream (to use his own Word) to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account, for which he is so expresly condemned; no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry; but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast, is a new Opinion, beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into.

§ 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God, and yet made Anniversary by Men, is, Matth. 15. 9, In vain do they Worship me, Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies, in general, and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant, as a Species comprehended under that Genus. This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at, as Ridiculous; and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture, wherein I think he is Singular; and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others: which he superciliously rejecteth: it is this, Teaching for Doctrines, in the Language of the New Testament, is affirming such a thing to be the Command, or immediate Will of God, when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution; and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that, is the Crime here reproved. It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text: when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of, what beareth Analogie to that: what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command, which is but Mans Device, we cannot tell, unless he shall please, in his next Edition, to inform us. For his Exposition it self, it is no way to be admitted, nor can he prove, by Instances, that this is the Language of the New Testament: I am sure this Place cannot be so understood. For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are, strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place, Religious Washing of Pots, Tables, Cups, &c. Dotations made to Corban, the Church Treasure, with Neglect of Relieving their Necess…tous Parents; now that the Jews did ever pretend, or Teach, that these p. 226were the Commands, or immediate Will of God; more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such (for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church) I think he will never be able to prove: all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things (so far as either Scripture, or other History doth inform us) is, that these Things ought to be observed; that it is Sin, and Schism, and therefore Censurable, to neglect them; and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them. And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies, and the Holy Days, in particular. He citeth Hammond. Practi. Catechis. p. 203▪ but telleth us not what he saith, for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author, in that Place he Citeth; where he seemeth to speak in another Strain, in his Notes on this Scripture, his Words are, My Commands are not Heeded by them, but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them; this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly, Luc. Brug…. docentes, id est, sequentes ipsi, & alios docentes ut sequantur. Also, Interpreters generally, and among them Hammond himself, look on foreign ▪ as what is meant by foreign, they Taught these Commands; their Doctrine was, that they should be obeyed, and the Things practised; but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God. He hath an incoherent Passage, p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament, for Celebrating the Christian Festivities. We know that they owe their beginning to the Piety and Wisdom of the Apostles, or their Successors. I gladly would know how he can know that the Apostles gave them a beginning, if they be not instituted in Scripture; unless he will rest in uncertain Traditions, as a part of the Rule of our Faith and Practice, to supply what the Scripture is defective in. Neither shall we demand of him express Institution, if he can shew us Institution by good Consequence drawn from Scripture.

§ 16. His strongest Refutation of another Citation, viz. Jer. 9. 31. is to call it a Foolry. He maketh the Argument to be Foolish enough indeed; as a Wise Man may be exposed as a Fool, by putting on him a Fools Coat, and Hood and Bells; but they are neither Wise, nor Ingenuous Men who Treat him so. He maketh our Argument from that Text, to run thus; God did not Command the Israelites to burn their Sons and Daughters in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; Ergo, to appoint a Time for the Solemn and Religious Performance of that Worship, which he himself commanded, p. 227falleth under the same Censure. This Way of Arguing is none of ours but his own. We thus argue, God condemneth that Worship of the Jews, as on other accounts, so on this; that he Commanded it not, neither came it into his Mind, Ergo, no Worship devised by Men, and not instituted by God, is allowable. And we have above proved the Celebration of Holy Days to be, not only a determining of a Circumstance of Worship, which is not determined in Scripture, but must be determined by Men; but to be an Addition to the Command of God, for setting apart some of our Time to his Solemn Service. If this Reason be Foolrie, Calvin as well as I, must be a Declared Fool, (viz. by the Wisdom and Candor of this Author) who on this Place, hath this Passage, Haec ratio diligenter notanda est; quoniam his Deus ansas hominibus praecidit, ubi hoc solo titulo condemnat, quicquid tent abunt Judaei, quia non mandavit ipsis; no… est igitur alia quaerenda ratio in coarguendis superstitionibus, nisi quod carent praecepto Dei. And a little below, Ergo, magnum pondus est in his verbis, ubi dicit Prophet…, Deum nihil tale mandasse, & nihil tale sibi venisse in mentem; quasi diceret, nimium sapere homines, cum excogitant quae ipse nunquam quaesivit, imo nunquam voluit cognoscere. That the Phrase, I Commanded them not, hath in it a Meiosis, I shall not controvert, but this Meiosis doth not hinder, but that Literally, and in Propriety of Speech, this horrid Fact is condemned, as uncommanded Worship. No doubt, this Fact was not only not commanded, but forbidden, yea greatly abhorred by the Lord; but it doth not thence follow, that it was not Evil, …o nomine, because not commanded; seing that Immorality of it is expresly mentioned.

§ 17. Another Scripture for Humane Holy Days had been mentioned in the Apology, p. 42. John 10. 22, 23. where it is said, that Christ walked in the Temple at the Feast of Dedication. Which was none of these that God appointed. It was Answered, His walking in the Temple on that Day cannot be strained to signifie either Joyning or …pprobation: this Answer he is pleased to represent, p. 179. as if it had been, that Christ went thither only to walk, which he calleth an Irreligious Fancy. This is not fair Dealing: it was neither said nor thought, that Christ went thither only to walk. We think he had a higher End, viz. To take Occasion to Discourse with the People, or to Preach the Things of Salvation, while they were assembled in the Temple. His Refutation of this (beside what is said) is, Christ was at the Feast of Dedication, who never separated from the Jewish Worship. Answer, That he was at the Feast, wanteth Proof; he p. 228was in the Temple on the Feast Day, Ergo, he was at the Feast; id est, joyned in that Solemnity, non sequitur: That he never separated from the Jewish Worship; is said without Warrant; we affirm, he did, and give our Reason for what we say, viz. he condemned all that Worship, that had not Divine Institution, as is before proved; Ergo, he did not joyn in it. I think sober Men will judge this a good Consequence. Here was (saith our Author) the most proper Occasion to reprove Humane Religious Festivities. Answer, Our Lord knew betterwhat was the fittest Occasions for what he had to do than this Gentleman could Teach him. He had condemned them in general: on this particular Occasion, he had greater Things to Treat with them about, and things, that, being uncontroverted, were not so like to irritate them, and render his Doctrine ineffectual to them. That he quarrelled nothing in the Jewish Constitution, merely because it was of Humane appointment; is to …ly in the Face of a considerable part of his Doctrine, mentioned Matth. 15. from the beginning. He is con…ident to say that Christ complyed with such Usages, (viz. Ceremonies of Humane Appointment) among the Jews. And he bringeth two Instances of it; one is, Christ kept the Passover, not according to Institution, but according to the Custom that then obtained in the Jewish Church, viz. With having the Loins girt; having Shoes on the Feet, and a Staff in the Hand: and he asserts, that there is nothing in the Original Precept, that giveth the least Hint of its being Temporary, and Relative to their Itinerary State in the Wilderness: but rather, that it was of perpetual Force and Obligation, yet the Church changed that Ritual of Divine Institution, into another that signified more propperly Rest, as the other did their Travelling in the Wilderness. Here is plain Dealing; whereby our Author giveth us yet further to understand his Principles. I shall not call this Parcel of Divinity simply New: but I am sure it is New among Protestants: nor did I ever meet with any of the Prelatick Party, who carried the Churches Power of instituting Ceremonies to this Height. For if this Reasoning have any Force, it will conclude, that the Church, may not only add to Gods Institutions; but may abolish some of them, and put others, more sit, in their Room; and if so, why should we blame the Church of Rome, who, though Christs Appointment was that Bread and Wine should be given to the People in the Lords Supper, yet have thought it sitter that they should only have the Bread, and the Wine should be reserved for the Priest alone; and Kings, and some others, by the Popes Indulgence: and they give as good Reason for what they say, as he doth p. 229here for his Principle, viz. That Receiving both Elements was fit for that State of the Church; but not for her more Multiplied and Numerous Condition, so the Council of Constance, Sess. 13. Licet Christus post coenam institueret, & suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie, panis & vini, hoc venerabile Sacramentum: tamen, hoc non obstante, sacrorum canonum Authoritas, laudabilis & approbata consuetudo Ecclesi…, servavit & servat, et licet haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula & scandal… est introducta rationaliter, quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea a confecrantibus sub utraque, & a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis recipiatur, &c. Also the Council of Trent, Ses, 21. chap. 21. Recognosceth the Councils Power in this; that though Christ did Institute the Sacrament in both kinds, yet they make a Law against it, which cannot be changed but by the Church it self. Let the intelligent Reader judge, whether here be not a harmonie of Principles, in this Matter of the Churches Power, between these two Anti-Christian Councils, and this Author who owneth himself a Protestant; let it be also left to the Judgment of all who regard the Authority of Christ, more than that of Man, whether it be not more rational to say, that seing it is evident, that some Rules about the Passover, which were at first enjoyned to the Israelites in the Wilderness, were afterward not observed by the Church, and even by Christ himself (who was a strict Observer of the Mosaical Law while it stood in Force) were appointed but for that present time, and that the …hange that the Church afterward made was from her Knowledge of this Temporarie Institution, and not from any Power that the Church pretended to, to Alter what GOD had Instituted?

§. 18. Another Instance he bringeth of CHRIST'S complying with the Jewish rites not Instituted by the LORD is, the Jews used a postcoenium, of Bread and Wine, after the Paschal Lamb: This Christ not only complyed with, but he adopted it into his own Religion, and gave it a high Signification, and made it a Faederal rite of the New Covenant, &c. here is another piece of his Divinitie, which I confess is not so singular as the former; for some pretenders to be Antiquaries, and great Criticks, have in this, trode the way before him. Answer, If we should yield what they here demand, as to Matter of Fact, viz. that the Jews used to eat Bread and drink Wine, after eating the Paschal Lamb; and that Christ did the like; will any rational Man say, that this is an Approving of their Adding to the Ceremonies of the Passover. For, 1. Can they prove p. 230that Christ did this in imitation of that Jewish Custom: or that he had any regard to it: may not we do the same Action that another doth, yet do it on other Designs than imitation of that Person? or, is it imaginable that our Lord would build so great a Gospel Ordinance on such a Foundation, as is the Practice of such an Apostate People as the Jews then were? sure he had a higher Design in this Heavenly Institution. Again, if there was such a Custom then in the Jewish Church; there is no ground to think that it was of any great Antiquitie; or that is was brought in while that Church continued in any measure of Puritie; but it must have had its rise in the time of that Apostace that ushered in their rejecting the Messiah, and their being utterly rejected of God, for so doing; for we read nothing of it before the Captivitie; nor after it while the Maccabees lived: Now can any Man think that Christ, who had reproved their Religious Washings, and other Ceremonies, would be so fond of these, which stood on the same bottom with them? I further Answer, that this Tradition of the Postc…nium is a groundless fancie: I find no such Custom among the Jews, of taking Bread and Wine after the Paschal Supper. Scaliger first broached this Opinion of a Postcaenium, or two parts, or Services in the Paschal Supper. And is reprehended by Buxtorf for it, but Defended by Capell de literis Hebrae: p. 167. who out of Maimonides, giveth a long Account of all the rites used by the Jews in the Celebration of it: Lightfoot also, and Grotius, give a verie critical Accompt of their Rites out of the same Rabbi: Addison also, in his Description of the present State of the Jews in Barbarie; describeth that Feast, as Celebrated by them: but what our Author allegeth is found in none of them: but on the contrarie; I find two things that they agree in, which maketh against his Postcaenium of Bread and Wine, and Christ imitating of it: The 1. Is, the Jews used many Benedictions at several Cups, and Morsels they took: so did not our Lord: he Blessed the Meat that they eat, no doubt, and we read of this Blessing Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper; but to say that he repeated so many Benedictions (which were no fewer than Eight or Nine; beside several Instructions that that they read out of the Scripture, which Reading they called foreign: and other Composers of their own) and all these Benedictions were by a set Form of Words. If my Antagonist will perswade us that our LORD conformed to all these Rites, he must prove it by good Arguments, and not Authoritatively impose on Peoples Credulitie. The 2. Thing that I observe out of the Accompt that these p. 231Authors give of the Passover is, that they begin with a Cup, then they take the quantitie of Olive of the foreign, or bitter Herbs, and dip it in Sauce made for that Feast, then they eat what each one listeth, and after some other Observations, they take the quantitie of an Olive dipt as before, and after they may eat nothing that Night: here is no concluding with Bread and Wine, for a Postcaenium. Yea, Capellus (who seemeth to be too fond of our Authors Notion, that Christ had regard to the Passover rites in Instituting His Supper) giveth yet a quite other Accompt of it than he doth: for he telleth us, that Christ took Bread and Wine in stead of that Morsel of the bigness of an Olive: whence it clearly followeth, that Christ did not appoint Bread and Wine in Imitation of the Postcaenium, consisting of the same Materials: If he have no better Argument to Prove the vanity of Presbyterian Speculations (as he phraseth it) their Opinions will be able to stand against all his Assaults. I adde the Observation of Buxtorf Synagog: Judaic: cap. 13. who after a full Accompt of the Jewish Passover, and all the Rites of it, hath these Words, p. 307. ex paucis istis facile perspici potest, Judaeos …estum paschatis amplius ex Mosis, vel Dei praecepto, sed juxta Rabbinorum suorum Traditiones …lebrare, quas pluris faciunt quam Dei Precepta.

§ 19. His next Work is, to Justifie his high Extoling of the Holy Days: he had said, it is certain that nothing perserveth the knowledge of the Christian Religion among the Bodie of the People more than the Festivities of the Church: and this I called raving, the Word and Sacraments being more useful for that End. To this he Answereth two things, p. 181. 182. The first is, that he did not Attribute this effect to the Festivities without the Word and Sacraments, to which they are subordinate: as being the fittest seasons for Christian Exercises. I still think this is no sober Doctrine: for there is a fitter Season for these of Christs appointment, even the Christian Sabbath. Beside, it is evident that he Spake of his Festivities, though not in a separated Notion, yet in a distinct Notion, from the Word and Sacraments; and I not only think that GOD'S Ordinances are more effectual without, than with Mans devices, I mean the Holy days; because having no Institution, they have not the Promise of the Blessing, and are but vain Worship; but that GOD'S Ordinances used with the Holy days; if any Efficacie be to be expected from that Conjunction, have a greater Efficacie toward preserving Knowledge among the People, than the Holy days can have; therefore, there is a more Efficacious mean for that end, what ever notion he take the Holy days in. But the Reader p. 232may know, that this Expression was not the only ground why raving was imputed to him; but several others of that, or a higher strain; which were Examined, but he is pleased to Pass what was said against them; with this shift, he is not at leasure to follow the Vindicator every where, far less is he inclined to Examine all these Exceptions against the Author of the Apologi…. I find him at leasure for as needless Work, as it were to Clear to us these, and the like Passages, do we not see all Nations agree in this, that publicke Solemnities, and annversarie Festivities, and Fasts, are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion, (this is a soaring flight of his fancie) they preserve and increase our Mortification. They oblige the most Stubborn and Impenitent to think of his Soul: and the visible Practices of the Church Preach Repentance more effectually, and make more lasting Impressions, than the loose and definite Homilies of self conceited Men (all the Sermons of the Presbyterians, no doubt are here meant) the Reformation of the Greek Church is hindred by neglecting of Fasting: the Holy days are the Catechisms of the People: all the Notes made on the Passages for exposing of them, he passeth over in silence; the Reason is, if ye will believe him, not that he could not Answer all; but because he was not at leasure. A second Answer he bringeth is, that the Festivities cannot be considered without the Word and Sacraments; and other Exercises of Religion, and this he taketh a great deal of Pains to illustrate; as it is usual in Disputing for one to say most when he hath least to say; and he calleth it gross ignorance to think otherwise. I need not tell him how many of his Partie make more than a Metahysical Precision, either formal, or objective, of the Holy day, from the Religious Work of it; while they Celebrate it, without going to Prayers, in idleness or that which is worse, I know this is not the intent of the Church; yet, it is evident that these Days are capable of such an abstracted Consideration; I mean, in Practice, what ever be in the speculations that Men have about them: All that he so laboriously sayeth about the Conjunction of the Holy days with Religious Exercise on them, will evanish, if we consider, that our Question is not, whether the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion be necessarie to these Great Uses, and Effects that he speaketh of, for that we are agreed in; that these are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion: they preserve and increase our Mortification: …hey aw the most Stubborn and Impenitent, &c. (that is, they are Means adapted to these Ends) but that which we Debate is, whether these Ends may not be attained as well, by the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion in the use of these Means and p. 233Ordinances that GOD hath Appointed; or if the Holy days be necessarie, or the Religious Exercises, as performed on the Holy days, be ne cessarie for that End. This we deny, and we require that they may Prove it. And the Question is not, whether the Holy days, separated from Religious Exercises, are abominable; but whether Religious Exercise, or the times of GOD'S Appointing it, to wit, the Weekly S…bbath's, without the Holy days, be defective? I take Notice of a Learned distinction he hath about the Holiness of these Days, p. 183. that they are not Holier than other Days, in themselves, or because the Sun is in such a part of the Zodiack: but such a time being separated for such an Exercise, receives its Denomination from the Authoritie, and Exercise it self, by which it is distinguished from other Days. This seemeth to be shuffling, and not the distinct plainness that ought to be in Disputation; For 1. Some of his Partizans ascribed more Holiness to them than can be in extrinsick Denomination, even a relative Hol…ness by which Religious work on them is more Acceptable than at other times. So Hooker, above Cited. He should have told us, whether he understandeth this relative Holiness, or a mere Denominative Holiness; that they are called Holy, but there is nothing of Holiness in them, even with respect to the Authoritie and Work that they have relation to. He doth indeed tell us; that they are called Holy days by a relative, and extrinsick Denomination, which is a Metaphysical notion not easily intelligible (he Chargeth others with nonsense, and gross ignorance, on less Ground,) a relative Denomination must be a Denomination built on a Relation; which supposeth a relative Holiness in these Days, which yet he seemeth to disown again. If the Authoritie by which they are Instituted, and the Exercises performed in them, can communicate a relative Holiness to them; wherein doth their Holiness differ from that of the LORD'S Days? It hath no more but a relative Holiness, resulting from Divine Authoritie injoyning it, and the Holy Exercises that the LORD hath Commanded to be performed in it. The Difference then, must be only this, that it hath a relative Holiness of GOD'S making: these a relative Holiness of Mans making: and so Man as well as GOD, shall have a Power to Communicate a relative Holiness to Days, and consequently to Places, and other Things: and how much of the Popish Superstition, and Power of Consecration, that will bring in, I know not; neither, I suppose, was himself aware of it. I think it is evident, that the first Day of the Week (which we own as the LORD'S Day) hath no intrinsick p. 234Holiness of it self: the Sun being in such a Degree of any Sign of the Zodi…k as maketh up the Number of Eight, from where we begin to Count, doth not Communicate any Holiness to such a Day. Now if he think the Church can give the same sort of Holiness to these Days that the LORD giveth to the Christian Sabbath; he must prove that such Power is granted to her; I am sure some of his Party disown that Notion. What he Objecteth to himself from the abuse of these Days is confirmed, and his Answers refuted, §. 5. of this Section.

§. 20. The Antiquitie of the Holy Days he next considereth, p. 185. He had in his Apologie, required that we should tell when they began to be Observed, and without that he will conclude that they were used since the days of the Apostles; It was told him, this is Iniquum Postulatum; and the Consequence is naught. Both because of the Defectiveness of History, and they came in by insensible degrees. Next, it was shewed from the silence of Scripture, and of the History the first Age…, that Christmass (for of that was the Question) was not Observed for 300 years after Christ; which was Con…rmed by Easter being much noticed, but it not; and this was Confirmed from Cent. Magd. Spanhem. and ancient Histories cited by them: also Spondan speaketh but faintly for it: all this he thought fit to overlook; only he Examineth the Assertion; which he doth falsifie, by Extending it to all Holy days except Easter. And laboureth to prove out of Origen, and some others, that some of the Christian Feasts were mentioned sooner than 300 years after Christ. I am not much concerned whether it be so or not, for if they were then used, and injoyned by the Church, scripture silence of them is enough to us; and laying so little weight on humane Authority for them, I searched no further; but Trusted to them who had made it their Business to trie it. But now, when I have further considered that Matter, I …nd the proofs that he bringeth for this Antiquitie of Christmass very Lame; he first citeth Origen, contra Cel… ▪ mentioning the Christia… Festivities: but he is not pleased to point to the Place of that Large Work, where this Passage may be found, that it might be Examined. The like Omission in another, about a Word of Augustin, he agregeth at great length, p. 195. though that Sentence be most frequently cited: may not one guess that Origen speaketh of the Weekly Sabbaths, which are not forbidden, Gal. 4. 10. as some might think them to be, because Sabbath-days are mentioned in a paralel Place. Col. 2. 15. also of Easter, that in, and before Origins days, was observed, and contended about. His other Citation, Origen on Math. Homil. 3. I cannot find; though I p. 235lookt over that Homilie. May be he hath used some later Edition which hath been interpolated, as most of the Writings of the Fathers have. His next Author is Hippolitus, as he is Cited by Photius: all his Proof out Hippolitus is, he wrote Homilies in Sanctam Theophaniam, and a Conjecture that himself layeth▪ no weight on: it is NIAC. is found in Gruterus his Ancient Inscription of the Works of Hippolitus, the rest of the Line being defaced. The Answer to all this is easie. 1. Hippolitus is an obscure Author; I know not what weight is to be laid on his Testimonie, if he had it. 2. Photius, who lived …n the Ninth Centurie, may be rejected, by an Argument Ad Hominem; which he maketh use of to invalidate the Credit of the Scotish Histories, concerning our Conversion from Heathenism, p. 232. 3. Hippolitus writing Homilies in Theop…aniam cannot prove his Point: unless that he can Prove that that Word, from the beginning of Christianitie was not used to signifie the Incarnation, or GOD manife… in the flesh (which is the proper Import of it) but only the Anniversarie Day of the Celebrating that Mystery; which was its current Signification when Photius wrot. For his Niac, it is so wide and groundless, and a strained Conjecture; that few wis…, Men will be fond of mentioning it: much less of making an Argument of it: he supplieth it (I know not by what Authority) foreign. He next citeth the Canons of the Apostles, the Authority of which we cannot own; unless he give better Evidence that they are genuine than others have yet given. For what he sayeth of the Natalitia Martyrum; I denie not that in Process of time, they did degenerate into Holy Days, such as he pleadeth for, and becoming so Numerous, they became a Burden to the Church; and were di…used, till the Pope restricted the Observation of them to such as he had Canonized; but, at first they were nothing but Commemorations of them, made after the ordinarie Service of the Church: and that Age, and some that followed, were so respectful to the Martyrs (for Encourageing People to be Faithful in that Firey Tryal) that they gave the Martyres extraordinarie Priviledges; whence it may be Inferred, that from these Commemorations, to other Holy Days; is no good Consequence. He hath not yet Proved that the Author of Def. of the Vindication is once mistaken in his Calculation (though I do not think it impossible that he may so mistake) nor yet that the Centuriators have not been Accurate in their Search into Antiquitie. It is no consequence, the First Christians did Commemorate the Martyres, who Succeeded the Apostles; Ergo, they p. 236could not forget the Apostles themselves; if they understand such a way of Commemoration; the Reason I have already given.

§ 21. He Inferreth, p. 190. that the Feast of the Nativity was early Observed; because Easter and Pentecost were so. The Consequence will not hold; and the Reason was given Def. of Vindic. p. 28. viz. many of the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewish Customs (among which was the Observation of Easter and Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks may be added) but had not then begun to devise new Holy Days of their own. He Answereth an Objection that was brought, that the Day of CHRIST'S Nativity is uncertain, nor can it be Proved that it was December 25. He Answereth, there was no need to determine that Question; and all Christians (he excepteth some Presbyterians) are agreed that this Determination was not Ne…essarie; and that Christians in different Nations, make no scruple to comply with the Chronological Accompts of that Countrey where they live, they Commemorate the Mystery; but do not Impose on the belief of People in matter of Fact. He sayeth, the Vindicator left this Consideration al…ogether untouched. In this he is in the Wrong; and is Guilty of what he blameth another for. There were Arguments brought to Prove that if such a Day was to be Observed yearly, it was needful that we should know what Day in particular it is; all which he hath left untouched. They are, it was never heard of, that the Birth day of any Person was kept, but on the Day on which the Person was Born. That if this Determination be needless, the Church might appoint any Day of the year for this Commemoration, which none ever affirmed. It was also told him, that others, particularly Master Hooker, pleadeth with more cogencie for Holy Days (which he mistaketh as if his Abilitie had been compared with Master Hookers, whereas no more was intended, but that Master Hookers Arguments, which are lookt on as the strongest on his side, are inconsistent with his Notion) while he sayeth, Eccles. Polic. lib. 7. 3. 69. that GOD'S Extraordinarie Works have Sanctified some times, & Advanced them, so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour GOD, more Holy than other times; and afterward, as CHRIST'S Extraordinarie Presence Sanctifies some Places, so His Extroordinarie Works Sanctifie some times; from this the Author of D…f. of Vind. inferred justly that the Church in chusing another Day, acteth Arbitrarily, and unwarrantably; and Absurdly; neglecting the …ay so Sanctified It was also told him, that it is a probable Argument, at least, that the LORD would not have a recurrent particular Day Observed on account of CHRIST'S Birth; seing He hath concealed from us what Day it was that CHRIST was Born; especially seing He hath Instituted the observation of the Day of Christ's p. 237Resurrection, viz. the Weekly Sabbath; He hath told that it was the First Day of the Week; all this my Adversarie hath overlookt, as either not worthy of his Notice, or as easily Answered. I look on his Citation out of Austine as not to this Purpose, when he sayeth, nos & Dominicam diem, & Pascha Coelebramu…, & alias dierum celebritates; sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant, non tempora observamus, sed quae illis Significantur temporibus, this indeed Proveth that Augustin thought that these were not to be Observed for themselves; but for the Mysteries that were Commemorated on them, but it no way evinceth that he thought there was no need of chusing the Days themselves, on which the thingsCommemorated were Acted; but one Day of the Year might be as fit as another, as the Church should Determine.

§ 22. It is unreasonable to put it on us to disprove that Christ was born Dec. 25. as he doth, p. 192. For that we cannot do so well as by fixing on some other Day, and proving that to be the Day of the Nativity: which we pretend to be uncertain: it rather is his part to prove, who affirmeth that our Lord was born on that Day. And yet, if it were needful for our Cause, probable Arguments might be brought, whic… may incline us rather to think, that he was born at another Season of the Year: some of no mean Learning have been at pains to prove that his Nativity was in September, or in October. But whatever may be the Concernment of our Adversaries, it is no Concernment to us, what was the Day: it is enough to us, that the Mystery it self is firm and sure. The Reader may find this Question about the Day and MonethMonth of the Nativity, Learnedly handled by our Countrey Man Master Bailly, operis historici, & Chronologici lib. 2. quaes. 7. p. 42. & seq. where he concludeth, with Spanhemius, Mensem & Diem Natalitium a nemine determinari debere, nec posse, cum de iis Scripturae silent, nec quicquam certi primis Ecclesiae Christianae seculis a quopiam prolatum sit. He had been charged by the Author of Def. of Vind. with Shu…ling, in that he had pleaded God's Appointment for Holy Days, because God hath appointed that we should obey the Apostles and their Successors, as our lawful Ecclesiastical Rulers: because though we are to obey the Apostles, whom we know to have been Infa…ibly Guided; we are not to obey their Successors (real or pretended) further than they bring Divine Warrant; which cannot be shewed for Holy Days. He endeavoureth to clear himsel… from Shuffling, by telling us that there was no more meant than that the …hurch, may, by that Power which is perpetually lodged in her, Regulate the Publick Solemnitie… of Worship; and when she enjoyneth nothing but what is lawful, we ought to obey. Here is p. 238Shuffling to Excuse his former Shuffling; he is entangled by Wrestling to Extricat himself. For he supposeth the whole Question, that there is a Power perpetually lodged in the Church, to appoint Holy Days; otherwise he saith nothing to the purpose. Again, he supposeth that appointing of Holy Days, is as much in the Churches Power, as other Regulating of Publick Solemnities; whereas he should have considered, if he would have Explained, and not Confounded and Darkened the Matter, that there is a Regulating of Publick Solemnities, which lyeth in determining Circumstances, which must be determined, and yet are not determined in Scripture, such as the Time, Place, and Order of these Religious Actions, that the Lord hath appointed his Day to be spent in: there is another Regulating, which is adding to what the Lord hath appointed; more Days to his Day, new Religious Ceremonies to these which are of Divine Institution; or determining Circumstances, which neither are determined by God, nor need to be deterned; such as are more Holy Days than Christ hath appointed; the Churches Power about the first sort we do not controvert: her Power about the second is the Subject of our Question: and here he either supposeth the Question, viz. That the Church had such Power; or he saith nothing to the purpose. Yet further, when he speaketh indistinctly of Apostolick Power, and that of their Successors, as to this Regulation; if he mean no more than such Regulation as is always in the Churches Power, he giveth the Successors of the Apostles the same Regulating Power that themselves had; the Consequence of which is, that their Successors (I suppose he meaneth the Bishops) may institute new Offices, new Government, new Discipline, and all other Ordinances in the Church, as the Apostles might: which is full as high as the Papists Screw up the Power of the Church, and is indeed, to make the Bishops absolute Lords over God's Inheritance. And this he confirmeth by telling us, that the Apostles made Constitutions that were laid aside by their Successors; and other Usages came in their Room, but because he saw this lyable to Exception he distinguisheth betwixt greater Usages, that are variable unless they are equally subservient to the great Ends of Discipline, in all Ages and Countries; & nisi consuetudine Ecclesiae universae sint roboratae: and lesser Usages, whose Continuance and Abrogation may depend on the Convenience of particular Churches; and he giveth an Instance in the Deaconesses, which he saith are not in the Presbyterian Meetings, nor any Reformed Churches. If he would have Extricated himself from the Shuffling that was p. 239imputed to him, he should have given us some Rules, or Characters, by which we might discern, what Constitutions of the Apostles are to be accounted Great, and Unalterable; and what Small, and Changeable by their Successors: if Marches be not clearly Rid here, we are at a Woful Uncertainty: yea, bold Men may dare to meddle with Episcopacy it self: and pretend that it is one of the lesser Apostolical Constitutions; if they did at all appoint it. The Marks that he hath given us are very insufficient, their universal Subservience to the Ends of Discipline will be as much controverted, as whither they be great Constitutions or not: he saith Bishops and Holy Days are such; we deny it; and will Debate it with him; and so we are still in the Dark, what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside, or must be retained; for his consu…tudo universae Ecclesiae, first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it. Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles; or to make her infallible, not only in Fundamentals; but even on Government and Ceremonies. The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing; if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution, I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them.

§ 23. He Vindicateth himself, p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience, by telling us, that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things, not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed, as the Papists. If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self, and that the Church hath Power to institute them; I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience: but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter, and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed, that the Church Commandeth it: I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience, or Egregiously to Tri…e. He hath next, a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine: of which before. In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said, that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple, but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority, and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course. This he Treateth in Ridicule, not (I suppose) because he cannot, but because he will not understand it. We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary; a Day for Civil Solemnity, appointed by men, may be such: nor because it is set apart for Religious Use; an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation, when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work, and Man determineth the Day, is lawful, as is the perpetual recurrent Lords p. 240Day, appointed by God; nor thirdly, do we quarrel these Days, merely because they want a special Divine Warrant; because Anniversary Days for Civil Use, might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is, the Complex Nature of these Days; that they are wholly separated from Civil Use, as the Lords Day is; that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year; and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion, and all this, not by Divine, but by Humane Authority. If there be any Raving, or any thing unintelligible in this, I shall be content to be Instructed by him; or any who is of his Opinion. Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful; considered under several Circumstances; which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly, are Unlawful; for Instance, the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms; he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly, Monethly, or Weekly, if need be; yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day, in Case of Necessity; yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should, without Necessity, meet every Year, every MonethMonth, or every Week, on the Sabbath Day. He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph, when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church, in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning, and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped: such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles, or Apostolick times: These are his Words; though in his Review of them here, he seemeth to Smooth them a little. He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting, when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances. I love not to contend about Words; nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion: nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself; but I leave it to the Reader to judge, whither it may not be so Termed, when one insulteth over his Adversary, as having great and evident Advantage against him, when yet there is no Cause for so thinking; and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting, (or whatever he will call it) while he insinuateth the Universality, the Antiquity, and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days, and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety, on account of their differing from them; while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about.

§ 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning, when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason; therefore such Constitutions (as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in) have p. 241nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion. This was called loose Arguing, because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition; and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed, in place of the second Proposition. His Defence is; No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful; but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion: he telleth us that Clamours against them (so he termeth our Reasons) destroy all Unity and Order, about things not only Innocent, but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency: here is yet more loose Arguing, while he supposeth still the thing in Question. We deny their Innocency, also their usefulness; and must do so, till we see better Arguments for what is asserted: the Apostolick Churches did not use them; whence we may with Confidence conclude, that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion; yea, it is no weak Consequence, if we infer, that they thought them unlawful; being none of these things which Christ had Commanded, nor his Apostles Taught. That they were not forbidden, is Answered above; they are forbidden in general, and that is enough. That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order, &c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said; there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church, without them; and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies. His Syllogism that he presenteth us with, p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings: it is, whatever is agreeable to true Reason, is rather improved than condemned by Religion; but such Constitutions (he must mean the Holy Days) are agreeable to true Reason; Ergo, there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion. I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism (of the Rightness of which he is confident) it may easily be reduced to Form, by a little Change of the Conclusion; here is indeed closs Reasoning; but it is not concludent Reasoning: for we deny the Minor: though he attempteth its Proof, both in prosecuting the first, and the second Proposition. I am not fond of his Method of Probation; he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites; whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress: but that is a small Matter: I except against his Proof in what is more material; that all Nations are agreed in this; and this is the best Evividence of what is agreeable to true Reason: I deny both these Propositions, 1. How will he prove that all Nations were agreed about the Necessity and Usefulness of Holy Days? Or, I distinguish this Proposition; all Nations are agreed in general, that there should be some Religious Holy p. 242Days: if I should put him to the Proof of this, it might puzzle him; but for our part, we think it of great Use, and necessary also, necessitate praecepti; whatever may be said of the necessitas medii; we think it a Wise and Excellent Constitution of the Divine Will, that we have recurrent Days, (I mean the Christian Sabbath) and Occasional Times of Solemn Worshipping God: but that all Nations are agreed about the Necessity of Holy, Religious Anniversary Days of Mans Appointing; this is yet unproved; the Jewish Holy Days, (till that Church fell into manifold Apostacy) were appointed by God; the Heathenish Religious Rites, (and their Holy Days among the rest) were appointed (as they pretended) by these whom they owned for gods; which I could prove, if it were not to digress; with that Pretension Numa, and others gained the People to submit to their Religious Rites. For his second Proposition; it is utterly false, that the Agreement of Nations is the best Evidence of what is according to right Reason: this might hold, if Men were generally Perfect in Knowledge, and Holiness; if their Mind, Will, and Affections had no way been hurt by the Fall; but in the present State of Fallen, Corrupt, and Sinful Men; it is a False, Dangerous, yea Pernicious Position: if understood (as here it must be) of Matters of revealed Religion; such as instituted Worship is. His Proof of this Assertion is most absurd; which is, two Maxims of the Civil Law, wofully misunderstood; and misapplyed, viz. Quod major pars Curiae efficit, pro eo habetur, ac si omnes egerint; and, Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem. This is to be understood, of Humane Courts in any Nation, or Society; not of the Consent of all Nations: otherwise one Nation could not make Laws for it self; but must peruse the Volumns of all Nations, that they may know what Laws obtain in most Nations. Again, which is yet more to our purpose, these Maxims hold in Civil, not Religious Matters: to make the Consent of Nations to be the Rule of Religion, (as this Author manifestly doth) hath so many Absurdities wrapt up in it, that it is a wonder that such a Fancy could fall into the Head of one who owneth revealed Religion; and is not far from Hobbism, or Deisin, with which he is not sparing to charge the Presbyterians, on far less Cause given. I am far from charging him with these horrid Opinions: but I advise him to beware of Zeal for Humane Holy Doly Days on such Principles as would lead Men into that Snare. If we must be determined by a Pole among Mankind (as his Assertion doth plainly import) in the Matters of our Religion; p. 243Heathenism will clearly carry it against Christianity. Yea, Turkism will bid fair for it: and Popery will clearly Outvote Protestantism. This is a thousand times worse than what he (or his Friend) is so angry with a Presbyterian Parliament for, having regard to the Inclinations of the People, in settling Presbyterial Government; we must now receive the Holy Days, because the Inclinations of the Apostate World, Heathens, Jews, Papists, &c. incline that Way. His distinguishing of such Constitutions, by considering their general, or abstracted Nature, and considering them with their Ends and Objects; will not help him; for corrupt Men will always be generally for what is worst, consider it as ye will; neither can it be said, that this Rule of Judging of Religion holdeth not in the Essentials, and great Points; but in the inferior Matters, and Rituals: for, the instituted part of Religion lieth more remote from Mans Reason, as a Contriver of it, than other things in Religion do: because these depend merely on Institution, and the Will of the Instituter; as ye can less give a Reason, why Bread and Wine should signifie the Body and Bloud of Christ, (except from the Wi…l of him who appointed this) than ye can do why we should Pray to God, obey him, &c.

§ 25. He taketh it very ill, and calleth it strong Natural Nonsense, that the Holy Days (and other Religious Ceremonies of Mans Devising) are called new Means of Grace, which are not to be appointed by Mens Reason; but by Gods Authority, He saith they are only appointed to increase our Devotion for the old Means of Grace; they are but Circumstances of time determinable by the Church. All that is sufficiently refuted already: but he repeateth, and forceth me to do so; First, That which is appointed to increase our Devotion toward Prayer, the Word and Sacraments, (which are the old Means of Grace) is a Mean of Grace it self; for increase of Devotion is Grace; therefore, the Means toward that End must be Means of Grace: and if these be appointed by the Lord, as the Sabbath is, for increase of our Devotion in Prayer, &c. this is one of these he calleth the old Means of Grace, viz. Means of Gods appointing; if appointed by Men; for the same end, they must be new Means of Grace appointed by Men; and superadded to these of Gods Appointment. But the Holy Days are such, ex tuo ore; being appointed to increase our Devotion, this cannot be said of mere determining a Circumstance of Worship; as appointing a Week Day Sermon. 2. That which is necessary to the Beeing and Beauty of Religion: to keep us in mind of the Mysteries of our Religion, is the Peoples Catechism, &c. must be a Mean of Grace; but all this, and more, he p. 244hath ascribed to the Holy Days; not only to the Work to be done on them, but to it as done on such a Day; they must then be new Means of Grace, beside what God hath instituted. 3. That they are but Determinations of the Time of Worship, is above refuted; and himself refuteth it, by affirming that they are appointed for increasing our Devotion. I should allow him not only to Smile, but to burst out into Laughter, if it had been said (as he pretendeth) that Christmass was kept in Honour of Julius Caesar, before Christ was born; he need never want Matter of Laughter, if he be allowed thus to Devise what may make him Merry. All that was said is, that Holy Day was so kept; and thence called Yule in Scotland. The Import of which is no more but this; that the same Day being kept by the Heathens on one Account, some Christians changed it into another Use, and Celebrated it as the Day of Christs Nativity; as I could shew they did with many other, both Times and Places. His Criticising on the Word Yule, making it Noel, and then turning it to a nouvelle; and Expounding it, a Day of Tidings, I might rather Smile at; I think it not worthy a Laborious Examination. I need not take it very ill that he useth me with Contempt and Scorn, when he, p. 208. putteth the Excellent Buchannan among the highest Order of Devils. It was said that our Author saith as much as that the Holy Days are the Power of God to Salvation. He Answered, p. 209. he looketh on them as the Publick and Stated Seasons wherein the Power of God to Salvation is manifested. This is far below what he had before said▪ that they are necessary to the Beeing of Religion, &c. and this Expression he Apo…ogizeth for, ibid. blaming his Antagonists ill Nature, because he understood it not of the External Profession of Religion; and that it was meant that they are very useful for it, as the Exercises of Religion must be performed, sometimes with Ord…r, Uniformity, and Society. I confess neither is my Nature so good as to applaud this Answer, nor is my Understanding so good as to comprehend how this can be the Meaning of that A…ertion. Would he have us so good Natured as to think all is sound that he saith, whither it can be reconciled to any sound Sense, or not? I am sure he doth not set us a Copy of such good Nature. We have the Mercat fallen very low; from the Holy Days being necessary to the Beauty, and Beeing of Religion: first, to this, that inward Religion may do well enough without them; next, that they are not necessary, but only very useful to the External Profession of Religion. And then, that External Religion needeth them only sometimes. Further, that it may subsist always without them: but it will not, in that p. 245Case, be so Orderly as were needful. Yet again, it is but for the Uniformity of External Religion, that they are any way useful, so as the Beeing and Beauty of it may be kept where they are not observed: only these Churches are not like their Neighbours. And lastly, Religion, Internal and External, may have both its Beeing and Beauty, in particular Persons, though they observe no Holy Days; only it is useful, that if they think fit to go to Church, and to Worship God, in Society, on these Days, that they should observe them. If he will allow us thus to understand all his big Words, it will tend much to Compromise our Differences. He taketh it amiss, that it was said▪ that he Damned them all to Hell who do not observe Christmass; and this he disowneth. The Ground of that Inference was (for it was not charged on him, further than that it followeth from his Principles) that he maketh the Observation of it necessary to the beeing of Religion. I think they who are without the Beeing of Religion, are in the Way to Hell; yea though they understand it of External Religion, which they are capable to Practise; what can we think of the State of Presbyterians, who do not, yea will not; and think they ought not observe the Holy Days, if the Observation of them be necessary to the Beeing of Religion? It is not imaginable that a Person of such Sentiments, can have any Degree of Charity to them, with respect to their Salvation, unless he think a Man may be Saved without all External Religion.