The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 29
Sect. 29. And now we are come to the third part of his undertaking, concerning thoſe voluntary oblations under the Law, &c.
THe Doctor here begins with his common fallacy, his altering of the queſtion, p. 173. n. 1.[That all things not commanded, are not unlawful, in the ſervice of God; and conſequently ceremonies and circumſtances of Worſhip are not prohibited to a Chriſtian.] Where firſt, all things; are put, for all worſhip, not commanded; ſome things not commanded are not unlawful, but all worſhip not commanded is unlawful. 2. He confounds ceremonies and circumſtances of worſhip (as oft afore is noted.) He hath ſaid, his Feſtivals are circumſtances of Worſhip, but (I think) he will not ſay, that his Feſtivals are ceremonies of Worſhip. All ceremonies Jewiſh, (parts of the ceremonial Law,) were Worſhip or parts of Worſhip: which if he will ſay, of thoſe which he calls ceremonies, I dare be bold to tell him, he is highly ſuperſtitious, and preſumtuous. Some of them indeed were Circumſtances of Worſhip, as times, places, &c. but they were alſo parts of that legal Worſhip: but his ceremonies (ſo called) he denies to be parts of Worſhip: yet ſome of them, would very improperly be called meer circumſtances of worſhip. But of his above.
The main queſtion in this Section of his, n. 2.is about the parallel of his Will worſhip, with the Free-will-offerings of the Law; he conceived them to be [directly parallel to thoſe voluntary, or uncommanded oblations among the Jews.] And thence concluded as he thought, irrefragably, [That the uncommandedneſs of a few decent rites, or uſeful ſeaſons, ſet apart for the worſhip of God, could not upon that account, become unlawful, &c.] I ſhould not be ſo Critical or Cenſorious to think and judge that the Doctor equivocates in thoſe words, [Set apart for the Worſhip of God,] which may have a double ſenſe. 1. That they are ſet apart, as worſhip of God; (as the Temple was ſet apart, not onelyonly for other worſhip, but as it ſelf, a part of worſhip.) 2. That they were ſet apart, onelyonly as ſeaſons, for other Worſhip commanded, to be performed in: I ſhould not, I ſay ſo judge, but that I have and do obſerve, that he doth make his Feſtivals, more then circumstances, even parts of worſhip: as I ſhall manifeſt hereafter, and now go on.
Thus he ſayes for the parallel of theſe two, [If in any other reſpect there were difference betwixt them, yet he was ſure there was none in that; they were equally not commanded by God, and ſo ſecured from criminous, as well as the Free-will-offerings were; or both ſtand or fall under the ſame condemnation.] But this proceeds, upon a double falſe ſuppoſition. 1. That theſe Will worſhips of his, and thoſe Free will offerings were (as he ſaid) directly parallel: whereas it will appear, they differ, not in ſome other things, (as he) but halt upon the main leg on which that parallel ſhould ſtand; as ſhall appear preſently. 2. That they agree in this, [that they are both equally not commanded by God.] Which will alſo appear to be falſe. For upon review of what I ſaid, in my former Tract. ſ. 29. I perceive, I needed not to have ſaid ſo much; yet do not repent of what is ſaid, in thoſe diſtinctions given, to ſhew the nature of a Free will offering; they may be uſeful, in ſome reſpects. It had been ſufficient for me, to have denied his direct parallel, between thoſe things compared; eſpecially in the maine point, between us: [That thoſe Free-will-offerings were by himſelf, aſſerted to be parts of Worſhip;] which I punctually obſerved more then once; and [deſired it might be obſerved, that thoſe voluntary oblations were parts of Gods worſhip; ſo by proportion, his voluntary oblations, or Will-worſhips, muſt be parts of Worſhip, not rites, or degrees, or circumstances of Worſhip.] Will-wor. ſ. 29. But n. 19. of this Section, be plainly denies to make good the parallel in this, [as not obliged to it, that every Rite and Feſtival ſhall be a part of Gods Worſhip alſo,] as thoſe Free-will-offerings were. But ſay I, if they be directly parallel, then either the Free will offerings were rites, or ceremonies, or circumſtances of Worſhip, as his Willworſhip, are now; or both muſt equally be parts of Worſhip, to make them parallel. For it is no good arguing, to ſay, thoſe Free-will-offerings were parts of Worſhip, allowed by God; ergo, Will worſhips now are lawful, and allowed by God: and if they were but rites and circumſtances of worſhip, then it would be more unfit to conclude, therefore Will worſhip is lawful now, becauſe the things are not parallel; circumſtances of Worſhip, and worſhip it ſelf, are very diſtant, and no concluding from one to another. But this is good, circumſtances of Worſhip might lawfully be appointed by the Church, then, ſo they may now; and worſhip deviſed by the will of man, was unlawful then, ſo it is now; but his will-worſhip, is worſhip deviſed by men; ergo, as unlawful now as then. I ſhall therefore diſcover a double difference, between thoſe Free-will-offerings, and his Will-worſhip pleaded for. 1. Thoſe (he ſayes) were parts of Worſhip; but theſe often denied to be ſuch; wherein the parallel ought eſpecially to hold; both of them ſhould be uncommanded Worſhip, not uncommanded rites, or circumſtances of Worſhip. But now it's proved a contradiction in adjecto, to talk of uncommanded lawful Worſhip; if it be Worſhip, it is commanded; nothing not commanded by God, is worſhip, that is, not true worſhip, but falſe. And yet (ſee the abſurdity of it) the Doctor having denied his rites and circumſtances, feſtivals, &c. to be parts of Worſhip, yet pleads for uncommanded Worſhip; let him reconcile it. If he ſhall ſay, the Free will offerings were uncommanded Worſhip, and yet lawful: ſo may his voluntary oblations be: I ſhall ſhew his errour by a ſecond difference between them. 2. Thoſe Free-will-offerings were not equally not commanded, as his Will-worſhips are. For they were commanded (which is more then allowed) in their kindes, See n. 4. As being of thoſe kindes, which were allowed by God.being to be offered onelyonly of things commanded; they were uncommanded onelyonly in their degrees; ergo, the ſpeciall kindes of beaſts, fowles, &c. which were to be offered were commanded or preſcribed by God himſelf, and ſo far parts of Worſhip; but how oft, or how much, for frequency, or quantity, (above what was neceſſarily required) was to be offered, was left free; and ſo was the ſame worſhip in degrees; but did not properly make a new part, or kinde of Worſhip: the choice of a ſheep or goat; of two ſheep or more, was not a new worſhip, but a new circumſtance or degree of worſhip. But now his Will-worſhip (intended in the text, Col. 2.23.) is neither commanded for the kinde, (but forbidden rather, becauſe it is not commanded by God,) nor yet is it any degree of worſhip, becauſe it is not in a Worſhip commanded; if no Worſhip commanded, no degree of Worſhip; it muſt then be falſe-worſhip. 3. In that liberty of choice, God had reſpect to the abilities of men, in his commanded Worſhip; and as a Pigeon was accepted from the poor, ſo a bullock was expected from the rich, for a thank-offering; and ſo became a duty, and no uncommanded Worſhip: Deut. 16.10. The parallel whereunto, in the New Teſtament, is that Text, 1 Corinth. 16.2. as was ſaid in my other Tract. But his Will-worſhip never comes to be a duty, but continues ſtill to be uncommanded Worſhip, and ſo forbidden. I may therefore ſafely conclude againſt his parallel: [Free will offerings were commanded worſhip, but his Will-worſhip is uncommanded Worſhip: therefore the parallel is moſt imparallel.] That Free-will-offerings were commanded Worſhip, is proved afore, by this, that they are by the Doctor confeſſed and aſſerted to be parts of worſhip; but every part of Worſhip was commanded. That his Will-worſhip is uncommanded worſhip: (men deviſed Worſhip) is all along held out by him, deſcribing Will-worſhip, by uncommanded Worſhip. His parallel then being broken in the main leg on which it ſhould ſtand, there need no more to be ſaid to his Section: But to clear the matter more, I ſhall attend to what he ſays, but very briefly.
To the formality of a Free will offering, p. 174. n. 4.two things (he ſays) were onelyonly required; [1. That it were not particularly commanded by God, and ſo were ſpontaneous to offer, or not to offer. 2. That it were offered to (and graciouſly accepted by) God, as being of thoſe kindes which are known to be allowed by him.] To this I ſay, firſt, that he hath left out, the principal thing by himſelf ſet down, in Sect. 29. of Will-wor. viz. [To obſerve, firſt, that they were a part of the Worſhip of God, when they were performed.] But he dare not ſay ſo, of his Will-worſhip, though he do make it ſo. 2. There were ſome things not particularly commanded, where yet it was not free, to offer or not to offer; as when it was left free, to offer a ſheep or a goat; it was not free, not to offer one of them; but neceſſary to offer a ſheep or a goat. 3. The command, where it was not particular for the kinde, was yet general or indefinite, with reſpect to the ability of the offerer, and ſo neceſſary, not arbitrary. The woman for her purification, if able, was to bring a Lamb; and it had been ſin for her to bring a Dove: And ſhe that was poor, as ſhe was tied by command for the kinde of her offering, a Pigeon, or a Turtle-dove; ſo ſhe was bound to offer one of them: (not free to offer nothing) and that liberty was no part of Worſhip, as I ſaid in my other Tract. 4. In thoſe other Offerings, (above what was particularly commanded) there was a liberty to offer, or not to offer, ſo many Lambs, Sheep, Bullocks: but as theſe were preſcribed for the kindes, ſo they were, as a due debt of thankfulneſs, required of the able, whom God had more proſpered; and were therefore left arbitrary, becauſe all men were not equally able, (and ſo not equally obliged) to offer. That which was no ſin, for the poor, was a ſin in the rich; and this was done by a Goſpel diſpenſation, 2 Cor. 8.8. To prove the ſincerity of your love.(even among the Jewes) to try the Ingenuity of their hearts. In this ſenſe, we may grant Free will offrings now, in the times of the Goſpel; that is, in degrees of commanded Worſhip; ergo, Prayer is Worſhip commanded in general; there is no particular command, how often in a day, a man ſhall pray, that depending upon a mans particular occaſions and opportunities; which when they happened, the frequency was under command: but that frequency made not a new kinde of worſhip, but a degree of the ſame kind of Worſhip. And if any man ſhould make that frequency, or number, a part of Worſhip; he made a new kinde of Worſhip, which the Doctor himſelf condemns. Again, we may be ſaid to have Free will offerings in this ſenſe; as they had a liberty of choice to offer a Sheep or a Goat, &c. ſo we (at leaſt in private) have a liberty of choice, of ſeveral ordinances, under command; ergo, Prayer, Reading, Singing of Pſalmes, are Worſhip under command; and its arbitrary, which of theſe we will chuſe to worſhip God withal, or in what order, or frequency; but then theſe are not new kindes of worſhip, but worſhip for kinde, under command; and in reſpect to that order choſen, no Worſhip at all, but circumſtances of worſhip. To his ſecond thing required to a Free will offering, [that it were offered to God, (and accepted by him,) &c.] I have this to ſay, 1. That the bare offering to God, is not ſufficient; for Turks and Papiſts offer their ſervices to God. 2. That the acceptance of it, depended upon the command of God, at leaſt for the kinde; [as being of thoſe kindes, (ſayes he) which are known to be allowed by him.] Where he ſayes too little; they were not onelyonly allowed, but commanded by him for kinde, and therefore allowed, and accepted, becauſe they were commanded: if a man ſhould have offered a Lion inſtead of a Sheep or Bullock, or an Eagle inſtead of a Pigeon, &c. this had been a new worſhip, and abominable: and this would be parallel to his will worſhips now, which are not degrees of commanded Worſhip, but new kindes or parts of Worſhip. The Jews might offer Free will offerings, in commanded worſhip, above what was particularly commanded, but they might not deviſe or offer any new kindes of worſhip: and now by what hath been ſaid, the Reader may ſee the Doctors grand miſtake, [That his uncommanded Worſhip is directly parallel to thoſe Free will offerings,] which he again affirms here, n. 4. [Some things were left to mens free power and choice; if they offered, they ſhould be accepted, if not, they ſinned not; which is the perfect image and clear interpretation of that foreign, or will worſhip, for which that Treatiſe pleaded, that it was not criminous in a Chriſtian.] When as it's apparent, thoſe were parts of Worſhip, ſo are not his will-worſhips, by his own confeſſion; and thoſe w… for kinde, under command, and regulated by Divine rules; but theſe are altogether uncommanded, at leaſt ſome of them.
And now the anſwer to the following parts of … of his, p. 175. n. ….will be eaſie: when I ſaid, [The formality of a Free will offering conſiſted in this, that it was left free to offer or not to offer, &c.] I meant not in regard of new kindes of worſhip, not commanded, but in regard of degrees or circumſtances of commanded worſhip. But he maintains will worſhip, men deviſed worſhip, not commanded by God. There was a liberty of Free will offerings then, which reſpected commanded Worſhip, but no new kindes of Worſhip, no will deviſed worſhip by the Jewes; which he now pleads for among Chriſtians. He argued therefore impertinently. [There were Free will offerings, which were part of Worſhip, then; ergo, he cannot ſee, but there may be ſomewhat of the ſame conſtitution now, voluntary and not particularly impoſed, yet allowed by, and acceptable to God.] He deludes us with generalities. He ſhould have ſaid, not ſomewhat, but ſome worſhip (for ſo were thoſe Free-will offerings) voluntary, and not commanded by God, but deviſed by men, allowed by, and acceptable to God. This I ſaid, hath too much of the foreign, in the text; and this (not as he ſtates it) is my Engine to demoliſh all that he ſaid, from that parallel; let him ſtay, and examine it, as long as he pleaſes.
The Doctor now comes to ſtate the queſtion, n. 8.[It muſt be of the ſpontaneouſneſs of the oblations, whether that being confeſſed lawful and acceptable under the Law, it be now unlawful under Chriſt, &c.] But that's his grand miſtake; the queſtion is of the nature of the oblations. 1. That they be for kinde, under precept: and 2. That they be parts or degrees of commanded Worſhip: elſe, were they never ſo ſpontaneous, they were not acceptable to God; the matter of any VVorſhip is then onelyonly lawful and acceptable, when it falls under a command; that gives it the form, and makes it true VVorſhip. He equivocates with us, in, uncommanded oblations: which may be either, not at all commanded by God, in their kindes, and for ſuch he will not plead; for that is to introduce new worſhip: or if commanded in the kinde, yet not in the particular degree, or circumſtances, and that will do him no good; for that is not will-worſhip, deviſed by men; ſuch as that will-worſhip he pleads for muſt be: but as it is worſhip for kinde commanded, ſo it may, pro hic & nunc (as they ſpeak) be neceſſary, which his will-worſhip cannot be. Two things I ſhall adde to this number, 1. That he calls his will-worſhip, Oblations; which were in the old Law, parts of VVorſhip, or proper VVorſhip: which he will anon deny of his. 2. That if ſpontaneouſneſs of oblations alone, will make them lawful and acceptable to God, the Papiſts are as ſpontaneous, and voluntary in their vowed Caelibate, Poverty, ſuch and ſuch Habits, Faſtings, &c. as the Doctor can be in his will-worſhip; and ſo he muſt either juſtifie them, upon that point, or condemn himſelf, with them.
And now I ſhall come to conſider his arguments; the firſt whereof is (he ſayes, p. 176. n. 10ad hominem.) Reminding me of my three Texts out of the old Teſtament; the ſecond Commandment, Deut. 4.2. and the fourth Commandment. [1. They were thus of force againſt all uncommanded ſervices, in the old Teſtament. 2. by Analogie they ſtill hold under the New, which if they do, then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribiſts pretenſions, &c.] His argument is thus ſumm'd up: [Whatſoever was lawful under the Old Teſtament, p. 177. n. 12is lawful under the New. But Free-will or uncommanded offerings were lawful under the Old Teſtament; ergo.] Firſt his Major is none of mine, and clearly falſe; none of mine, for I argued (with learned Divines) clean contrary; [The worſhip of God then, was far different from the worſhip of the Goſpel;] And as he ſets it, it is clearly falſe, and he can never prove it, [That whatſoever (worſhip, for of that we ſpeak) was lawful then, is lawful now.] Give me leave to make an aſſumption to it from himſelf, n. 7. [The kinde of that worſhip was Levitical; and long ſince aboliſhed by Chriſt, yet was lawful then. Secondly, the former diſtinction of uncommanded worſhip, will avoid his whole argument: uncommanded for kinde, or uncommanded for degree or circumſtances: In the firſt ſenſe, (as I meant it) the Texts by me alledged do directly militate in the Old and New Teſtament. But then the Minor is falſe; uncommanded offerings for kinde, were not lawful under the old Teſtament: if uncommanded be taken, in the ſecond ſenſe, uncommanded for degrees, or frequency, &c. which are but circumſtances of Worſhip commanded, they were lawful then. But this will not ſerve his turn; who pleads for uncommanded, will-deviſed Worſhip, both for kindes and circumſtances: ſuch are his Will-worſhips, of Virginity, &c. not at all commanded by God, but left indifferent, as he confeſſes. Now the argument may (in my ſenſe) be retorted; [What ever (worſhip) was unlawful in the Old Teſtament is unlawful in the New. But uncommanded offerings (for kinde) were unlawful then; ergo, ſo now.] Let him try his ſtrength to anſwer this. But there is one foul miſtake, n. 10. (whether willingly or no, I will not ſay.) In touching upon my argument from the fourth Commandment, (in the particular of Feſtivals) he charges me to ſay, [It is an offence in the exceſs, to obſerve any other Holy-day, but that one of the weekly Sabbath.] My words are otherwiſe, [To make and obſerve other days, as Holy as the weekly Sabbath, as parts of Worſhip, is an offence and exceſs againſt the fourth Commandment.]
The ſame diſtinction (as afore) will cut the ſinews of his next argument, n. 13.taken [from the liberty and advantages which reſult to Chriſtians, from the abolition of the Moſaical Law; which conſiſts in taking off, not in impoſing weights and interdicts; whereas by this Diatribist affirmation, a multitude of burthens come in; when I ſhall do any thing in the ſervice of God, not particularly commanded, I am preſently enſnared, &c.] Firſt, For the burthen, it is ſtill the ſame, in matter of new kindes of uncommanded worſhip; not when I ſhall do any thing in commanded Worſhip, as he too generally ſpeaks) but when I ſhall adde any Worſhip, not commanded, then I am enſnared. Secondly, let it be obſerved what the Doctor ſays here, [That the liberty brought in by Chriſt, muſt conſist in taking off, not in impoſing weights and interdicts.] But hereafter we ſhall finde him aſſerting, that Chriſt by perfecting the Moral Law, and adding to it, hath rather increaſed the burthen to Chriſtians, as we ſhall ſee in due place, p. 218. n. 49.
To the third argument, little need be ſaid more: Free-will offerings were then lawful, p. 177. n. 14but not Will-worſhip, or Worſhip not commanded. And if Free-will-offerings then, were not Will-worſhip, neither is his Will-worſhip a Free-will-offering now; they then are not parallel (as was ſaid) and ſo no arguing from one to another. As for the fourth argument; n. 15.I did but ſay, that it ſeemed to me (as to others) that the formality of a Free-will-offering conſiſted in the freedome to offer or not to offer, &c. which is true in this ſenſe, that the particular quantity and frequency of offering, was left free, and not commanded; but not, that the kinde of offering was left free. But he talking of uncommanded Worſhip, would have his Reader think, that there was a liberty then, to offer or not to offer, uncommanded Worſhip, which was a new kinde of Worſhip, ſo to build the lawfulneſs of his Will worſhip, uncommanded Worſhip, upon that foundation.
The fifth argument is anſwered as the former; …thoſe Free-will offerings that were, in all thoſe periods lawful, were no for kindes uncommanded worſhip; which that the Doctor doth intend, appears, firſt, by paralleling his Will-worſhip with thoſe Free-will offerings, which were parts of Worſhip; and ſecondly, by his inſtance of Abels oblation, which certainly was real Worſhip; and yet the Doctor would believe (with ſome, and but ſome Fathers) not to have been by way of precept from God, but left to Free-will, &c. to offer or not to offer; this certainly was not a circumſtance, but a new kinde of Worſhip, never heard of before; and ſo unparallel either to the Free-will-offerings of old, or his Will-worſhip now. Bellarm. himſelf grants the Altars (and ſo the Sacrifices) of Abraham, &c. to be by inſpiration, and impulſion Divine. De …ff. Sacr. l. 2. c. 31.And however the Doctor inclines rather to thoſe few, that ſay it was not under precept, yet moſt of our beſt Divines do think and ſay, it was under ſome precept to Adam, or Abel; without which, it had been abominable, by that ſtanding Law of the ſecond Commandment, [That none, but God himſelf muſt preſcribe any Worſhip to Him;] which is the Doctors own gloſs of that commandment, as we heard above. And therefore I can eaſily ſhew a prohibition, of Moſes, and Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, not, as he phraſes it, [which forbids us to do the leaſt thing in the ſervice of God, which is not particularly commanded,] but not to deviſe any ſervice or Worſhip of God, which is not ſo commanded. And this, I have attempted and cleared, as above. Whereupon I ſhall draw up a concluſion contrary to his, (changing but the word performance, which is too general, in the ſervice of God, into Worſhip) [That uncommanded Worſhip, ever was, and ever will be unlawfull.] And this may be ſaid alſo to his next; p. 179. n. 17, 18.where he ſtill deludes us, by Free-will performances, inſtead of Worſhip. But this I ſhall adde, that, firſt, Gods promulgate allowance of thoſe Free-will-offerings amongſt the Jews, together with his regulations of them, was an implicite precept; but he can ſhew none ſuch, for his Will-worſhips under the Goſpel: an allowance of uncommanded Worſhip, though of circumſtances there is. 2. It muſt (ſayes he) be ſome poſitive prohibition, which is required to make any thing unlawful, the want of a declared allowance will not do it.] He ſtill waves the queſtion; which is not of any thing, but of any Worſhip; and the want of a declared allowance, will make that unlawfull; for all Worſhip, not commanded is unlawful, and beſides, is poſitively forbidden. 3. Thoſe inſtances in the New Testament by him given, were either, not in point of VVorſhip at all, or elſe are but degrees or circumſtances of commanded Worſhip; and that command, gave them both allowance, acceptance, and reward.
And now at laſt, p. 180. n. 19after a long diſpute, to make his VVill-worſhip, or uncommanded Worſhip directly parallel with the Free-will-offerings, he deſtroyes all, by ſaying, [He is not obliged to make good the parallel ſo far, as that every Rite and Feſtival, ſhall be a part of Gods Worſhip, as thoſe Free-will-offerings were.] But ſay I, take away this paralleliſm, and the Doctors argument is nothing worth: [Free-will-offerings were part of VVorſhip then, and lawful; ergo, VVill-worſhip, uncommanded VVorſhip, (which muſt be parts of VVorſhip, elſe unreaſonably called VVorſhip) VVorſhip deviſed by the will of man, is lawful now.] If he deny theſe latter to be parts of Worſhip, (as ſometimes he does) what conſequence is this: [Parts of VVorſhip were lawful, then; ergo, Rites and Feſtivals are lawful now.] This hath no coherence with that Antecedent, were it never ſo true it ſelf. If ſay, they are parts of Worſhip (as Papiſts make them) he contradicts himſelf, who often hath renounced any parts of Worſhip lawful to be deviſed by men. His two conſequences upon that refuſall, are as little worth. 1. [That foreign, VVill-worſhip is ſuch, [ſuch, what? a part of Gods Worſhip: for ſo he ſeemes to argue; [though every Rite and Feſtival be not a part of Gods worſhip, yet certainly I may conclude, that VVill worſhip is ſuch.] But ſay I, every of his Rites and Feſtivals are VVill-worſhip with him; then are they alſo parts of Worſhip, as well as foreign is concluded to be; which yet was before denied. And yet again, it will appear hereafter that he makes his Rites, at leaſt his Feſtivals, ſome of them, parts of Worſhip. The ſecond concluſion, [That the voluntary, (uncommanded) uſe of theſe Rites, &c. is now as lawful, as it would have been, if they had been parts of VVorſhip,] is as ſtrange an inference as the former; as if he ſhould thus ſay, See the ſame expreſſion, p. 183. n. 8.[Rites and Feſtivals made parts of VVorſhip by men, are as lawful, as if they had been made parts of VVorſhip by God:] For ſo his proofs, à majore ad minus; and ſecondly, from the uncommanded days of Worſhip, allowed, at leaſt approved by God, without ſpecial allowance, ſeem to hold out, or I underſtand them not. To the latter I ſhall onelyonly ſay, the Feaſts of Purim, and Dedication, were either appointed by God, (as ſome think of the firſt, at leaſt,) and then nothing to the purpoſe, as being parts of Worſhip, which his Rites and Feſtivals are denied to be; or if appointed by men, as parts of Worſhip, it appears not, that they were allowed, or approved by God; or if as circumſtances onelyonly of Worſhip, as they are allowed by me, ſo they are not to his purpoſe, who pleads, in all this large preceding diſcourſe, for VVill-worſhip, (which includes VVorſhip) and uncommanded-Worſhip, and not onelyonly for uncommanded Rites and Feſtivals. And this may ſatisfie what he ſays in the laſt numb. 20.