The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 3

The Account Audited and Discounted · Exercitation 3

p. 358Exercitation. 3. Of Chriſtmas, and other Feſtivals.

HAving ſo largely vindicated the two former Diatribees in Theſi, I ſhall not need to be long, in Hypotheſi. The judicious Reader, ere this, underſtands, that my main deſigne in undertaking this work, was primarily to manifeſt the Superſtition and Will-worſhip, in the ordinary obſervation of the chief Feſtivals, (and the reſt) and ſecondarily to juſtifie the abolition of them, againſt which, the Doctor hath ſo much declamed. For which end, I took in, (as I ſaid at firſt) his other two Tracts, of Superſtition and Will worſhip; to make a clear diſcovery (of that, which I ſaw the Doctor had clouded) what thoſe two Crimes were, which (beſide the Riot) were charged upon his Feſtival; that ſo the Application of them to the Festival in particular, might be the more eaſie and obvious to every intelligent Reader. For if Superſtition and Will-worſhip be, as I have proved them to be from the Teſtimonies of Orthodox Divines, and of the Doctor himſelf, and they criminous. And then the Obſervers of the Feſtivals be proved guilty of thoſe two crimes, and the Doctor as deep as any, (which onelyonly remain to be p. 359made good) I ſhall venture to make all indifferent, but judicious Readers, yea, and the Doctor himſelf in his ſedate and impartial judgement, both witneſſes and judges of my concluſion. If the Doctor himſelf ſhall lend me both my premiſes, even ſometimes, totidem verbis, I hope he will not be ſo uncivil or unnatural, as not to own the concluſion, as a childe of his own begetting; though it hath been ſeveral times brought home, and laid at his door, but he hath gone in and out, and took no notice of it. I ſhall once more lay it before him: But firſt, ſome other buſineſs takes us up, to be briefly diſpatched, rather by way of ſtrictures, then a ſet and continued diſcourſe.

That the cuſtome of a Church in things indifferent, is ſomewhat conſiderable, I denied not. p. 231. n. 3.But when humane cuſtomes are degenerated into ſuperſtition, and made Will-worſhip, that cuſtome though never ſo ancient is not to be pleaded. He may ſee, that my ſcope was onelyonly this, to beat down degenerated cuſtomes, pretended onelyonly to be ancient and Apoſtolical; and withal, to retort the argument intended by him, more ſutably to the text alluded to; [The Apoſtles and prime Church, had no ſuch cuſtome (as his Feſtival) therefore, they are contentious who plead for the continuancy of a cuſtome ſo degenerated.] Whence the Doctors teſtimonies, are indeed, ex abundanti, needleſs and ſuperfluous, (except to ſhew his reading) [That Chriſtians ſhould comply with the cuſtomes of the places whither they come;] That is, n. 4. &c.while they are in things indifferent, and neither burthenous by their number, nor vitiated by the former abuſes: But he knows, that Auguſtine in his time which was early to us, complain'd of the yoke of Ceremonies introduced, and wiſht them aboliſhed: and ſo much for that Section.

p. 360How thoſe Heathen uſages, p. 233. n. 3.that ſtuck ſo long to the Feſtival, came in, or when, it is not **See n. 8.worth the while to debate; it would be a better ſervice, for the Advocates of the Feſtival, to ſtudy how to get them out, which (I fear) they have not much troubled themſelves withal. Sure we are, many cuſtomes came in, in compliance as with the Jews on one ſide, ſo with Heathens on the other. I know he remembers well enough, who ſaid; Ita bellè Ethnicos in hac re, Polydor. Virg. de Invent. Rer. l. 6. c. 8. p. 234. n. 7.ut in nimis multis aliis, aemulamur. Though neither I nor he, can exactly tell, when that compliance firſt began. Suppoſe, that which the Doctor ſayes be true; [At the firſt converſion or plantation of the faith ſuch things might from the Jewiſh ſtate adhere unto the Christian, and ſo ſome others from the heathen alſo, 'tis poſſible and imaginable.] But its as true (which he addes) they were not taught them by Chriſtianity. Chriſtian Religion taught them no ſuch things, nor intended their continuance: but yet they were continued a long time. Hence his argument for Infant Baptiſme (of that I think he means it alſo) from the cuſtome of the Jewes to Baptize, is not conſtringent to a gain-ſayer, I believe he findes it ſo in his conflict with Maſter Tombs: for how eaſie were it to anſwer, (as I remember he does) it was the cuſtome of the Jewes to Circumciſe after Chriſtianty began, to keep the old Sabbath, & whats that to Christians? And if my judgement were of any worth with the Doctor, I ſhould make bold to tell him my conjecture in this caſe. Its very probable, that at the firſt beginning of Chriſtianity, ſuch things, or cuſtomes, as the Sabbath, the Paſchal, and Pentecoſt Feſtivals, might adhere to the Chriſtian, though not taught it by Chriſtian…y, that they ſhould be continued as Chriſtian Holy-days; and ſo ſome Heatheniſh cuſtomes in like manner from the p. 361firſt plantation of the Faith: But then I would infer, 1. That the Feſtivals of Paſch and Pentecoſt, called after, Eaſter and Whitſuntide, were no Apoſtolical conſtitutions, but rather charitable condeſcenſions of the Apoſtles, and after Planters, to win the Jews to the Chriſtian Religion. But not as taught them by Chriſtianity; nor to continue any more, then the old Sabbath or Circumciſion, &c. Which by degrees vaniſhed. Elſe I would ask, why was not the old Sabbath perpetuated in the Church Chriſtian, aſwel as Eaſter and Whitſuntide; there being more to be ſaid for it, in the Apoſtolical practice and other wayes, then is or can be produced for thoſe Foſtivals, as I have elſewhere ſaid. 2. I would alſo infer, that Feſtivals were continued or exchanged, for ſome Heatheniſh ones, (as Chriſtmas for the Saturnalia) to win them the better to the faith; not to be continued longer, then the Faith was well fettled: But ſuch is the miſchief of humane policies in Religion, that ill uſages once brought in, can ſeldom or hardly be gotten out again. 3. The Doctors argument is as little conſtringent as mine, that thoſe [uſages muſt needs be brought in, at the firſt converſion of a nation,] which might come in by degrees.

The time and Authour of our converſion, p. 235. n. 1.is as uncertain as the former, and confeſſed by the Doctor, [to be a foreign, to the buſineſs of Festivals.] And therefore I ſhall no longer draw the Sawe of controverſie therein, but leave the Doctor to his own conjectures, (for they are no better) and proceed to ſomething of more concernment. And that is, about the inſtitution, and obſervation of Eaſter, (by which standard all other Feſtivals are to be rated as the Doctor ſays p. 243. n. 10.) which, if we may believe him, was inſtituted, or at leaſt obſerved by the Apoſtles themſelves. p. 362The trial whereof is referred, p. 241. n. 2.not to Scripture, (which an Apoſtolical inſtitution, which is acknowledged elſewhere to be Divine, might juſtly expect) but to Tradition, out of moſt uncertain Hiſtories, unfit to build our faith upon. Euſebius, who lived in the fourth Centurie, a great diſtance from the Apoſtles age, is the firſt that writes about it, and all he ſays, is from certain Epiſtles, received by Tradition; n. 3.he ſayes, [All the Provinces of Aſia obſerved it on the fourteenth day, as from a more ancient Tradition, and a cuſtome long before delivered to them, which (ſays the Doctor) conſidering the time, wherein this question was agitated, at the end of the ſecond Century, can amount to little leſs then Apostolical.] But more then this, in the Epiſtle of Pollycrates to Victor, he ſays, [Many Biſhips of Aſia obſerved the fourteenth day, according to the Goſpel, keeping exactly the Canon of faith, no way wavering from it.] A good while after, comes Nicephorus (no very credible Authour) and ſays, n. 10.[Following the Apostolical tradition upward, or from the beginning, and that expreſly from Saint Peter the Apoſtle, which (ſays the Doctor moſt confidently) ſtill leaves the matter moſt evident and irrefragable, that this feaſt of Eaſter, which ſure is a Chriſtian Feſtival, was obſerved and celebrated by the Apoſtles, &c.] This was ſp…ken for the practice of the Weſtern Church, wh… kept on the Lords day; but the Eaſtern obſervation might fall on any other day of the week, as the Jewiſh Paſch did. But Socrates, in his time obſerved, n. 16.[That ſeveral nations had their ſeveral cuſtomes of obſerving Eaſter.] That is, as his words are; [As in many other things, ſo alſo the Feaſt of Eaſter by cuſtome in every nation, had a peculiar (foreign,) private obſervation; becauſe none of the Apoſtles, gave to any a Law about it.] p. 363Now theſe things hang not well together. I ſhall propound ſome conſiderations, to cool the Doctors confidence, to weaken, if not to break, this his ſtandard of all other Feſtivals, and to make it more then probable, that it is not Apoſtolicall.

1. The beſt and onelyonly ground he findes to pitch his Standard on, is but Tradition, unwritten Tradition, not the leaſt title of Scripture conſequence, but that of foreign, of which by and by. The plea is the very ſame with Papists for their Feſtivals, and other Ceremonies. Socrates who relates the debate between the Eaſtern and Weſtern Churches and their plea on both ſides, from ſeveral Apoſtles addes, [But not a man of either ſide could produce foreign, a written demonſtration of theſe things.] They all plead unwritten uncertain Tradition: Whereas a ſtandard for all Feſtivals ſhould have at leaſt one foot ſtanding upon a written word. It is too much (though too ordinary) for the Doctor to comply with Rome, in the countenancing of unwritten Traditions.

2. Traditions Apoſtolical do ſometimes imply, their written Inſtitutions and inſtructions; [Hold the Traditions **Traditiones vocat, doctrinae, & inſtitutu Religionis Chriſtianae, &c. Eſtius in locum.which ye have been taught, by word or our Epiſtle,] 2 Theſ. 2.15. (which no doubt were both the ſame:) But the Doctor though in the Authorities pleaded, he is content they ſhall uſe the words Apoſtolical Tradition, often, yet himſelf waves it, and never calls his Feſtivals an Apoſtolicall Tradition; but an Apoſtolical obſervation, p. 364**The words of Nicephorus in the margine, p. 242. n. 5. are foreign, Apoſtolical Authority: which is more then cuſtome, practice, &c. not Engliſhed by the Doctor.cuſtome, practice, n. 10.17, 18, 19. The reaſon is, becauſe an Apostolical Tradition to the Churches to keep, might well infer an Inſtitution, and ſo Divine Authority, which he knew, he could never prove, and therefore pleads, [OnelyOnly the Practice Apoſtolical, and not their commanding it by Law.] n. 17. But ſay I, Apoſtolical Practice onelyonly makes it more uncertain and more unable to bear his Standard, becauſe they practiſed many things, not as Chriſtians, or to be conveyed to Chriſtian Churches, but meerly too comply with the Jewes their countrey-men, to win them the better, as was ſaid above.

3. p. 242. n. 5, 6.Yet what is that leſs, then an Apoſtolical, Divine Inſtitution which Polycrates and his fellows, plead for their cuſtome: [All which (ſaith he) obſerved the fourteenth day according to the Goſpel, not at all tranſgreſſing, but following the Canon of Faith.] But then it might be feared, and inferred, that Peter and Paul tranſgreſſed both againſt the Goſpel, and Canon of Faith, in their contrary cuſtome. Let him ſee to that. Is it not very probable that Paul who was often and long in Aſia, would have withſtood Philip and John to their faces (as he did Peter the prime Apoſtle in a like caſe, Gal. 2.) for judaizing, and complying with the Jews, in the Feſtival, who had ſet up another Day in the Weſtern Church, or rather had cryed down the obſervation of ſuch dayes in other Churches, Rom. 14. Gal. 4.

4. If it were (I ſay not of Apoſtolical, Divine inſtitution) of Apoſtolical obſervation and practice, p. 365as a Chriſtian Feſtival, would they have differed ſo in their Tradition of it to the Churches, being guided all by the ſame Spirit? would Philip and John obſerve and leave to the Eaſtern Churches, the Jewiſh day, and Peter and Paul the Lords day, all of them jointly having appointed in all Churches a weekly day, for the commemoration of the Reſurrection? which is alſo made the foundation of Eaſter day. It's nothing probable.

5. If the Eaſtern obſervation of Easter was according to the Goſpel and Canon of Faith, how came it to paſs; that that cuſtome was aboliſhed, (as it was) and the Weſtern, was eſtabliſhed? was not this to ſet the Churches together by the eares, both of them pleading Apoſtolical Tradition?

6. The Romiſh plea, for their cuſtome, from Peter and Paul, may reaſonably be judged to be forged (as their primacy of the Pope, is,) For, 1. it's moſt probable that Peter was never at Rome, but uncertain and falſe Tradition ſo would have it, as our beſt Divines do make it appear. 2. Its moſt improbable, that Paul, who was ſo vehement againſt all obſervation of Feaſts, (except the Lords day) ſhould inſtitute, or practice the ſame Feſtival, and that at Rome, and ſo build again what he had deſtroyed. Rom. 14.6. Gal. 4.

7. Its no way credible that the Apoſtles all or any of them, would firſt cry down the Feſtivals as Jewiſh, and preſently ſet it up as Chriſtian; or 2. ſet up an annual day, for the commemoration of the Reſurrection, the Lords day being before ſet up for the ſame end. 3. Or lay ſuch a ground of difference to the ſucceeding Churches, by different timeing of it. Credat Judaeus apella, Non ego.

8. How came that conteſt between Victor and the Afiaticks, about the day, when the ſame difference was between him, and the French, and Brittain p. 366Churches: No leſs then a threefold different obſervation of Easter, in the Weſtern Churches, as was noted.

9. Why does not the Dr. endeavour, to recover the day, which Philip our Apoſtle, and firſt planter (by ſome ſent hither by him) endowed us with, and that according to the Goſpel and Canon of Faith, from John the longeſt liver of the Apoſtles; but ſubmits to the Weſtern cuſtome, and ſo ſubjects us to Rome, which he ſo fears, and warned me to be ware of? I leave theſe to his reſolution, and come to conſider, what he ſayes to my arguments againſt it.

1. There is no mention of the inſtitution or obſervation of it, in Scripture; nor ground to found it on. p. 244. n. 12 I ſaid, there was no ground in Scripture to found it on: To which he ſays nouothing.To this he hath three anſwers. [1. There is ſmall virtue in this, from Scripture negative.] As little virtue as there is in this negative argument, for me; it ſeemes to be great for himſelf, againſt me: For here n. 17. he pleads thus againſt the inſtitution of the Lords-day; [Sure the New Teſtament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it:] And again, againſt the uſe of the fourth Commandment, [Where did Chriſt reduce us to the fourth Commandment.] p. 263. n. 8. And once more, p. 281. n. 19. [Christ never reprehended the obſervation of the Feaſt of Dedication,] (that we read of) therefore he approved it. But, in the caſe in hand, & ad hominem, I have argued ſtrongly from Scripture negative; [Will worſhip is not commanded in Scripture, therefore it is unlawful. But this Feſtival with that of the Nativity, is made a Will-worſhip by Papiſts and the Doctor;] ergo, they are unlawfull, and as ſuch, have no ground in Scripture. 2. Anſwer [The Apostles word, foreign, let us keep the Feaſt is ſome (be it acknowledged a leſs weighty) ground p. 367in Scripture for the obſervation.] This word of the Apoſtle in the judgement of all Interpreters, hath nothing to do with his Feſtival: The text and context are alſo againſt his gloſs; which makes it ſo light, that it is not ſo much as ſome weight for the obſervation of it. And I having ſaid ſo much againſt this gloſs, in my 31 Section of Feſt. I wonder he ſhould ſo confidently produce it here, and ſay nothing to purpoſe to it, in its own place. All I ſhall ſay now, is this, that if this be the ſenſe of it, (which the Doctor begs) it hath not onelyonly ſome, but an exceeding weighty ground for the obſervation of his Feſtival, a foreign, a Lawgiving, an inſtitution Divine, which he will deny to the Lords-day, and proves more then he intended, not onelyonly the obſervation and practice, but alſo inſtitution Apoſtolical: But more of this below. 3. Anſw. [The mention of the Lords-day; Rev. 1. is ſome farther ground; if it be the annuall, then there is a clear evidence for the obſervation of it, in the Apoſtles days.] The Doctor is happy, if all his ſuppoſitions might be granted him; he knows, the place is generally underſtood of the Weekly-day, and what is then become of his clear evidence? But hear again, [If it ſhould be the weekly day; yet in any reaſon, the annual day of the reſurrection, was the foundation of this weekly day.] It is obſervable, that in all this diſcourſe of Feſtivals, the Doctors great deſigne is, to vilifie, if not to nullifie the authority of the Lords day, ſo to exalt above, or equal with it his Feſtivals; which (if there were no other crime) is ſufficient to ſtir the indignation, of any truly Religious man: Here he does it, and again preſently, n. 17. and afterwards often, as I ſhall note as I paſs on. But this he here aſſerts, is moſt incongruous. Rather the weekly-day, was the foundation of the annual day: p. 368For, firſt, its ſaid, Chriſt roſe on the firſt day of the week, often; and thereupon. It was deſigned to be the Chriſtian Sabbath, or day of Aſſemblies: but never is it ſaid, he roſe upon ſuch a day of the monethmonth, or year. 2. If the Lords weekly day, was not firſt inſtituted, how came the conteſt between the Churches, whether Eaſter day ſhould be obſerved on the Lords-day, or on the Jewiſh day, which might and did fall, on any other day of the week. Tradition ſayes, that Peter and Paul obſerved the Feſtival on the Lords day at Rome, does not this ſuppoſe the Lords-day to be inſtituted before the Feſtival of Eaſter? Saint John and Philip, its ſaid, kept it on the Jewiſh day; how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day. And let the Doctor remember, that his Mother the Church of England, as ſhe includes Easter day, among the Sundayes, making it no otherwiſe an Holy-day; ſo ſhe founds the Lords-day, not upon the annual day, but upon the fourth Commandment. When ſhe commands this prayer to be ſaid after it, [Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law.] But the Doctor will either prove, or illuſtrate what he ſaid; [As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church, had their foundation, in the annual great faſt on the day of Chriſts death, in the Paſchal week.] As if the faſt on Good-friday, were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lords-day; or humane conſtitutions, were to be a foundation for a Divine inſtitution. [That the Apoſtles did expreſly repeal thoſe Feasts,] n. 14. p. 244hath not (he ſays) the leaſt degree of truth in it, as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10.] Let the Reader turn to the place, p. 3. n. 2. and ſee what he ſaith to that text; all is but this, [It is peculiarly reſtrained by all circumſtances to the Judaical Feaſts, but no more appliable to the p. 369prejudice of the yearly Feaſt of Chriſts birth, then to the weekly of the Reſurrection.] Even from the beginning to the end of this account, his deſigne is to ſlur the luſtre of the Lords-day, levelling it to his Feſtivals. But, firſt, the Apoſtle ſpeaks indefinitely againſt obſervation of days, as religious, Paulus praecepit. ſayes, Hierom.all beſide the Lords day, which he had there alſo eſtabliſhed, as the day of collection, (and firſt of Aſſemblies) for that collection ſuppoſes the day before deſigned (inſtead of the old Sabbath) as well at Galatia, as among the Corinthians; 1 Cor. 16.1. [Now concerning the collection for the Saints, as I have given order, (foreign) ordered, ordained) to the Churches of Galatia, even ſo do ye, upon the firſt day, &c.] Here's an Apoſtolical inſtitution for collections on the Lords day, and preſuppoſes the day before appointed, in both thoſe Churches. 2. It is no wayes probable, that the Apoſtle would cry down Jewiſh Feſtivals of Paſch and Pentecoſt, and ſet up the very ſame again, at the ſame time, as Chriſtian Feaſts, as I ſaid above. If they were aboliſhed as parts of Ceremonial-worſhip, how ſcandalous might it have been, to change onelyonly the name, (nay the name was not changed in other Churches) and ſet up other Feaſts in their ſtead, as parts of Chriſtian Worſhip: for ſo they would be eſteemed, if the Apoſtle had ſet them up, or brought them in.

The ſeſtimony of Socrates the Hiſtorian, he eludes by a diſtinction; he means it thus, n. 15.[They made no Laws for the obſerving of Feſtivals, but refers the original of them to cuſtome;] but the Doctor ſpeaks onelyonly of Apoſtolical practice, ſo he ſayes: But, firſt, Socrates ſays nothing of the Apoſtolical practice; but refers it wholly to the cuſtome of ſeveral places and people. [It ſeemes to me (ſayes he) as many other things were introduced, p. 370by a cuſtome in divers places, ſo, the Feaſt of Eaſter, by cuſtome, in ſeveral people, had a peculiar different obſervation.] Why? becauſe none of the Apoſtles had made any Law concerning it.] But ſure if the Apoſtles did change it from a Jewiſh, to a Chriſtian Feſtival, and did themſelves obſerve it, as exemplary to the Churches, they did thereby at firſt give as good as a Law, and make an inſtitution, for them to obſerve. And I am perſwaded that upon this ground, of Apoſtolical tradition, and obſervation, came in all the Superſtition, in after ages, in making them Holy times, and parts of Divine Worſhip, &c. and they eſtabliſhed them as a Law, as Socrates ſaid, believing them to be Apoſtolical. 2. The truth ſeemes to me to lie here: The Apoſtles did often frequent the Aſſemblies of the Jews, in the Temple, upon their ſolemneſt Feſtivals, as a greater opportunity of fiſhing in a wide Sea, a multitude of people; as at Pentecoſt, Acts 2. and again, Acts 20 16 [Paul haſted to be at Jeruſalem at the day of Pentecoſt,] for the ſame reaſon; which cuſtome of the Feſtivals continuing, till the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, the Apostles did condiſcend to be at them, while they lived amongſt them: Whereupon the following Church ſeeing this example of their practice, took it as a Rule, to obſerve the Feaſts, eſpecially the Jewiſh Chriſtians in Aſia, being tenacious of their old cuſtomes, and ſo kep… the very ſame day, the Jews did; which other Churches, after the Jews were grown obſtinate, finding ſuch a cuſtome of the Feaſt, in hatred of the Jews, changed into the Lords day: as Auguſtine obſerves. Epiſt. 119 & Can. Nicen. de Feſt. Paſch. by Conſtantines perſwaſion. But ſee the tenaciouſneſs of men for Traditions of their Fathers. The Doctor cares not, (what he can) to weaken or queſtion the Authority of the Lords p. 371day, to ſtrengthen and ſtabliſh his Eaſter Feaſt. p. 245. n. 17[It will be hard for the Diatribiſt to produce any other evidence for the weekly Chriſtian Sabbath or Lords day, (then the cuſtome and practice Apoſtolical:) the New Teſtament hath no where any giving of Law, conerning it.] But ſure it will be eaſie for the Diatribiſt to manifeſt a palpable difference between the Lords day and his Eaſter, out of Scriture the beſt Record, (beſide what is ſaid out of prime Antiquity.) For 1. We finde the Name there, as a day of Chriſtian Aſſemblies, but not a word of Easter. 2. We finde the Apoſtles practice and obſervation of it, but never of Eaſter. 3. We finde grounds in Scripture for the inſtitution or deſignation of the day, but nothing for Eaſter, but rather the contrary prohibition. The grounds of the weekly Chriſtian Sabbath, it's well he will allow the Lords-day ſo honourable a Title, he cannot ſay ſo much for his Eaſter Feaſt; and ſome of his way, would have ſcornfully called it, [Your Saint Sabbath.] The grounds I ſay, are theſe. 1. For a ſolemn day of reſt, which is a Sabbath, we have the fourth Commandment morall in the judgement of its greateſt enemies. 2. We have it granted, that the day muſt not be leſs, then one in ſeven; yea, one day in ſeven, is granted moral in the fourth Commandment, by the Doctor **p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred, that a Chriſtian ſhould at leaſt ſet apart one day in ſeven, for our great Chriſtian purpoſes, the firſt day of the week, &c.himſelf. 3. Chriſt in Matt. 5. came to stabliſh (and not deſtroy) this Law, amongſt the reſt. 4. We have Chriſtian exerciſes performed on the day, beſide prayer, and preaching, and Lords Supper, collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day, which preſuppoſes the day p. 372**That which was done by the Apoſtles, if it were not a rule for ever, yet was an effect of ſuch a rule formerly given by Chriſt, and interpretable by this practice to be ſo, in his 4. Quaer. ſ. 94.before deſigned by Chriſt, or his Apoſtles: All this together amounts to a Divine foreign, or inſtitution. And laſtly, the uniform obſervation of this day, in all ages, in all Churches, muſt needs preſuppoſe it to be a Divine Ordination. Not one of all theſe can he truly prove applyable to his Eaſter Feaſt. Away then, with ſuch unworthy compariſons: But we ſhall meet it again, ere long.

And yet Iſaid, p. 245. n. 19.and ſay again, [The obſervation of Eaſter hath better Antiquity then this of Chriſtmas, though not Apoſtolical.] He anſwers, [The Apoſtolical practice being ſo evident, there can be no doubt, & then the Analogy holding, & the argument proceeding in full force from one Chriſtian Feſtival to another, will certainly juſtifie the obſervation, &c.] The queſtion is not now of the obſervation of either, but the Antiquity; ſo that this was a meer evaſion. There are hiſtories and traditions, and ancients that ſpeak of Eaſter, in the ſecond Centurie; but not one word of Chriſtmas; and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it; which to me, is a good evidence there is none. And as for Analogy, from one Feſtival to another; it holds as well thus: If there can be produced neither Apoſtolical inſtitution, nor obſervation of Eaſter, as a Chriſtian Feſtival, (as is probably evinced above) then much leſs is there any ground for the inſtitution or obſervation of Chriſtmas as an Holy-day: But this is but a foreign, to the main buſineſs.

When I granted, the Antiquity of ſome Feſtivals (in the third or fourth Century) might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman p. 373Antichriſtain See, adhering to them; The Doctor is overjoy'd, n. 1. p. 247.[and congratulates the unexpected ſucceſs of his paper.] But without any cauſe, for it wrought nothing with me, being of that opinion before, that Rome was not at that time Antichriſtian: But to diſcover my meaning, and to cool his boaſting, I believe the firſt Inſtitutors of Feſtivals had a good Intention, to commemorate the mercies of God, beſtowed on us in Chriſt, making them onelyonly circumſtances of Worſhip, though ſome Superstitions, did ſoon after creep into the obſervation of them: But after ages declining more and more, till Antichriſt got into the throne, thoſe Feſtivals (I meant) comparatively had at firſt nothing of that corruption, which after adhered to, and overwhelmed them, both in their Inſtitution, and alſo in their obſervation. Neither did I mean, that the Feſtivals as they were lately obſerved by ſome in England, had nothing of the Roman See, (as now it is corrupted) having charged the obſervation of them, by the Dr. and ſome others, with little leſs, if not the ſame Superſtition and Will-worſhip, (beſides the Riot) with them at Rome. And however the Doctor ſay, p. 248. n. 3.[That nothing could be more unjuſt and improbable at once, then what is ſuggeſted of corruptions, in the moſt ancient primitive Church.] Yet himſelf is more unjuſt in ſtraining and miſconſtruing my words: For I ſpake not of the primitive Apoſtolical Church, but of ſome ages after, wherein I ſuppoſed thoſe Feſtivals were invented, (ſuppoſe in the third or fourth Century,) and it were too eaſie to prove, that corruptions crept into the Churches, both in Doctrine and Worſhip, in thoſe ages, though more in after ages: And though its true, the Governors of the Church did oppoſe all fundamentall errours, p. 374n. 4.againſt the **Multa hujuſmodi propter nonnullarum vel ſanctarum vel turbu lentarum perſonarum ſcandala, devitanda improbare non audeo. Auguſt. Epiſt. 1 9. p. 249. n. 7.Natures and Perſon of Chriſt, &c. as the Apoſtles had done, yet corruptions in Worſhip might and did creep in, [Good men being loath to oppoſe them, thinking them errours that would increaſe piety,] as the Dr. Faulk obſerved. And though the Church did oppoſe and cenſure corruptions, in Doctrine and Worſhip, as ſhe was able; yet had ſhe in all times, ſome undutiful Sons, that corrupted both; and of their Errours I meant, the Church of Rome and the Romiſh Religion, as diſtinguiſhed from the Reformed, is a bundle. And what great advantage thereby I have given to Papiſts, by this Affirmation, I ſee not: For this is not at all [an agnition that the moſt accuſed Romiſh practices now adays, are the ſame, which were delivered to them from the primitive Church.] They were not delivered to them, by the ††The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did aſſault the Church. The Fathers (in them) declined from the ſimplicity of the Goſpel, Doctor Pulk Rejoyn'd. to Mart. ar. 1. ſee alſo, a. 3.Church of any age, much leſs by the Primitive; but they like flies fell upon and followed the corruptions of former times, and like Spiders ſuckt poiſon out of ſweet flowers. If the Doctor enter his diſcent to this. I am ſure many as true Sons of the Church of England, as himſelf, have ſaid as much, and will ſubſcribe their Aſſent unto it. Sure I am, he hath given them much more advantage, againſt the true Church of England, in juſtifying their Superstition and Will-worſhip, in their Feſtivals, by his Pen and Practice; as will appear, ere we part.

The next debate, p. 249. n. 1.in order, ſhould be about the power of a Church, univerſal or partiular, to conſtitute ceremonies for it ſelf, as it ſhall judge moſt uſeful, &c. and in ſpecial, to conſtitute Holy-days p. 375and Feſtivals The Doctor let fall thoſe words, [That this Anglicaene Church was inveſted with unqueſtionable power to inſtitute Ceremonies for it ſelf: which may not without temerity, be changed or aboliſhed by any.] To this I put in a demur, and deſired to ſee it proved, as tending much to the deciſion of the preſent controverſie. To which end, after ſome explication to ſtate the queſtion right, I gave in ſome arguments, for the Negative. All which the Doctor will not touch with one of his fingers, but wiſely leaps over four leaves of mine together: but goes on to beg the queſtion, in three particulars; [1. n. 2.That this Church of ours was firſt planted by ſome either Apoſtle, or Apoſtolical man, (which cannot eaſily be proved.) 2. n. 3.That the Feaſt of Chriſtmas was ſet up (that's an Institution, but corrected) or celebrated by thoſe that firſt planted the Faith here, i. e. ſome Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon (which is more improbable.) 3. That what was by ſo good authority, introduced, having no equal reaſon to ſuperſede it, may not without temerity, now be aboliſht by any, &c.] And this is the main queſtion, which being founded upon the two other, unproved ſuppoſitions, falls together with them. Yet the Doctor will prove this laſt by induction: [Not by any other perſons, Pope, p. 250. n. 4.or Conſiſcory, becauſe none hath power over a Church founded by the Apoſtles, and not ſubjected to any.] But this ſuppoſes it founded by the Apoſtles, and that that onelyonly makes a Church foreign, her own ſupreme head; whereas, if ſhe were planted, neither by an Apoſtle nor Apoſtolical man, but by an ordinary Miniſter, ſhe was free from ſubjection to any other head: [Not (ſays he) by the Church it ſelf.] What? may not the Church it ſelf alter her own Inſtitutions? are her Canons unreverſible? No, [becauſe it cannot be now ſuppoſed p. 376to have any ſuch perſons in it, as may be fit to compare with the firſt founders of it.] But then, the Feaſt of Eaſter on the Jewiſh day, might not by the after Church, be aboliſhed (as it was) becauſe no ſuch perſons as John and Philip could be ſuppoſed there. And beſides, it would make all the Apoſtles obſervations, unchangeable, and Divine: yet there's one help left; [Not without ſome greater reaſon for the changing and aboliſhing, then they may appear to have had for the uſing of it.] This will come again in hypotheſi to be conſidered; I ſhall onelyonly ask now, what better reaſon had Conſtantine to change the Jewiſh day, to the Lords day, when the Aſian Churches had the Goſpel and Canon of Faith, to found their cuſtome on?

But ſee the Application of his diſcourſe. 1. I granted the Engliſh to be ſubject to no forrain power: n. 5.he demands, [Whether it be ſubordinate to it's own Sons, or to any but the legal Fathers of it?] and then goes on with his ſcornful language ſufficiently: To which I ſhall give no other anſwer but this, to demand whether it be ſubordinate to its own Fathers, (the Biſhops, for them he means) and the reaſon why I ask it, is, becauſe he ſaid even now, [That which was by ſo good Authority introduced, (as his Chriſtmas he ſays, was by ſome Apoſtle, &c.) may not without temerity be aboliſhed by any; not by any perſon, not by the Church it ſelf,] for reaſons there given; unleſs he will ſay, his Biſhops are perſons fit to compare with the firſt Founders: otherwiſe neither Sons nor Fathers, might change or aboliſh it. But I queſtion'd the unqueſtionable power of the Church, to inſtitute Ceremonies, and to make them unchangeable. n. 6.The Doctor complains [of change made in his inference; he never aſſirmed of thoſe Ceremonies once inſtituted, that they might not upon good reaſons p. 377be changed and aboliſhed, His words are, may not be changed and aboliſhed by any: Of Feſt. ſ. 9. and he n. 4 not by any perſon, not by the Church it ſelf.by the ſame power which inſtituted them.] But if it be impoſſible to finde the ſame or equal power, in the Church, with them that inſtituted them, [it cannot be ſuppoſed to have any ſuch perſons in it, fit to compare with the firſt Founders,] are his words; then he does affirm, they may not be aboliſhed by any perſon or Church: Yes, upon better reaſons, they may, then they had for uſing them. This were very hard to finde in any after Church, that they ſhould be wiſer then the Apoſtles, to finde greater reaſons for the aboliſhing, then they had for uſing them. He ſhould have ſaid, inſtituting them, not uſing them; for we are ſpeaking of a power to inſtitute and aboliſh: And yet here he forgat himſelf and talkes of reaſons, [Whereon this Feſtival was ſuppoſed to be inſtituted.] Which word he hath warily waved all this while, and pleaded onelyonly Apoſtolical Practice and not Inſtitution; but let it go: He therefore haſten'd [to examine the preſent reaſons of abolition of this Feſtival, whether they were as important, as thoſe whereon this Feſtival was ſuppoſed to be inſtituted, viz. that of the pious and thankful Commemoration of the Birth of Chriſt. 2. Whether the reaſons for abolition, were not fained, thoſe of Will-worſhip and Superſtition, &c.] I ſhall anſwer firſt to the ſecond queſtion. The Doctor may vainly hope, that he hath evidenced them to be fained; but will finde them ſtick too really upon his Feſtivals, in his own opinion and practice; which if it be made good, I ſhall venture to ſay to the firſt, that the reaſons of abolition were as, and more important, then of the Inſtitution: becauſe Superſtition and Will-worſhip are moſt abominable to God; and the birth of Chriſt may be piouſly and thankfully commemorated upon any other day, as well as this.

p. 378And now, n. 9.was it not more policy, (to ſay no worſe) then piety in him, to wave all my diſcourſe concerning the power of a Church to inſtitute Ceremonies? and [to take leave to paſs it over untoucht.] Which by the Laws of diſputation, would not be granted him? For does it not concern his Feſtival neerly, to know, whether the Authority inſtituting it was ſufficient? if not, its void ipſo facto: If ſo, it behoved him to manifeſt it; having aſſerted, that this or any Church of the like foundation, [is inveſted with unqueſtionable power, to inſtitute Ceremonies for its ſelf, which conſequently may not, without great temerity, be changed and aboliſhed by any.] However, this being excepted to, and that (as I think) upon very good reaſons, it concerned him, to have given me and the Reader ſatisfaction herein. But let us hear how he colours his tergiverſation. [The two branches of his propoſition were no way concerned in any part of my ſtate of the queſtion; 1. That a national Church planted by the Apoſtles or their ſucceſſors, may lawfully uſe a Feſtival for the commemorating the birth of Chriſt, &c. 2. That ſuch an uſage, when it hath gained a reception, ought not to be declaimed againſt as Antichriſtian, or laid aſide by perſons under authority, &c.] For this latter, there is ſcarce one word of it in his propoſition, and for the former, it muſt neceſſarily be founded upon this ſuppoſition, [That ſuch a Church hath unqueſtionable power to inſtitute ſuch a Ceremony, ſuch a Feſtival:] Which if it be not proved (as it is meerly begged) let the uſing, or uſage, be never ſo ancient, (having concurrence of other Churches) yet it wants Authority for the continuance of it. For the Doctor muſt know, that its one thing, [To uſe a day for the Commemorating of the birth of Chriſt, and on it to p. 379pray, to praiſe God, &c. exhorting all good Chriſtans to partake thereof, and to lay aſide, their ordinary labours, &c.] and another thing, to inſtitute a day as a Religious Feſtival, making it as ſacred as the Lords day Sabbath, a part of Worſhip, and a ſin to work upon that day;] as Papiſts, and the Doctor do. And conſequently, if ſuch Superſtition and Will-worſhip be gotten into the obſervation of ſuch a day, it may be declaimed againſt, in thoſe reſpects, as Antichriſtian, and laid aſide, by thoſe that have power in their hands: which whether they had ſufficiently, who laid his Feſtival aſide, I leave to the Doctor to debate it with them, as not concerning me, who do believe, that I have ſufficient Authority from the word of God, (I ſay not, to aboliſh an uſage or cuſtome) not to obſerve any ſuch day, as is guilty of Superſtition and Will-worſhip. But to ſatisfie his credulous Reader, who takes all his words as an Oracle, he ſlurs my four leaves diſcourſe, thus, n. 10.[I ſhall omit now to take notice of the infirmities, which this diſcourſe of his, is as full of, as from any writing of no greater length, may well be expected.] If it were ſo, (though others judge it not ſo) it was the eaſier for him to have anſwered; his charity uſes not to hide or ſpare my infirmities.

In his 8. and 9. Sections, p. 252. n. 1. &c.there is little of moment, to our main buſineſs; ſome jerks and ſquibs there are, not worth taking notice of, and therefore I ſhall (as he did, with much more material things of mine) take leave to paſs them by untoucht, and proceed to the next.

That I proved what I ſaid, p. 255. n. 3.[That the firſt and pureſt ages of the Church did not obſerve his Chriſtmas,] is the ſcope of my 6, and 7. Sections of Feſt. 1. By diſproving the Antiquity of Eaſter to be Apoſtolical, by three arguments, which are again applied, p. 380Sect. 27. to his Chriſtmas, and the Doctor ought to have taken notice of them. 2. By the utter filence of the moſt ancient Records of the uſages of the Church, for the firſt 200 years, at leaſt; which is moſt improbable they would not take notice of, if then in uſe and practiſe: Truly (to uſe his own words) my eyes, or my memory very much fail me, or he hath not in any degree, out of any the moſt Ancient Records, given any one inſtance of any one Father, that ſpeak one word of his Chriſtmas Feſtival; All he pleads, is but the Analogie of it with that of Eaſter, which hath been ſufficienty ſpoken to, and will again here: which might plead ſomething (though not much) for the obſervation of it, when it was once ſet up; but nothing at all, for the Inſtitution, or Antiquity of it. n. 4.And therefore he finely puts it off, thus, [The dimneſs or want of stories of thoſe times, makes it not ſo evident of this of Chriſtmas, yet the Analogy holding directly between them; the argument remains as firm, that the laying aſide thoſe Feſtivals, is a ſeparation from the Apoſtolick, purest times.] But firſt, the Doctor ſpeaks of the dimneſs of the firſt ages; which ſure is a figure, foreign, dimneſs, for cimmerian Egyptian darkneſs: The ſtories of thoſe times, would have been as clear for Chriſtmas, as for Eaſter, if ſuch a ſolemnity and uſage, had been in being in Ignatius, and the next to him; or in **Tertullian, a man of great learning, a diligent obſerver and recorder of the Cuſtomes and Practices of the moſt ancient Church: Dr. Ham. of Infant Bapt. p. 97. n. 5. Yet not one word of Christmas, in the end of the ſecond, and beginning of the third Century.Tertullians and Origenes time. 2. The Analogy holds not in theſe two Feſtivals: For, firſt, Eaſter had a ſolemne Feaſt of the Jews, to plead either its Inſtitution, p. 381or obſervation; but there was no Feaſt of the Jews, at the time of his Chriſtmas; but it ſeems rather to be taken up, in imitation of the Gentile Saturnalia, a good while after. 2. Eaſter day, the day of Chriſts Reſurrection, is particularly ſet down, (and by the Aſiaticks obſerved) according to the Jewiſh account, or Lunary year, in all the four Evangeliſts. But the day of Chriſts Nativity, (as it cannot be diſcovered out of Scripture, ſo) is obſerved according to the Romiſh, or Solary, year. 3. Eaſter day, in the Weſtern Church obſerved on the Lord day, may ſeem to carry ſome Antiquity in the face of it: But the obſerving of Chriſtmas according to the Romiſh year, doth fairly ſhew, it was not obſerved in the Apoſtles time, nor by men, that came from Jeruſalem. 4. The Church of England obſerved Eaſter day, as a Lords day; but Chriſtmas as a peculiar Feſtival, and therefore, the Analogy is ſmall between them. Whereupon, the argument is of no force, [That the laying aſide this Feſtival of Chriſtmas (of Eaſter enough is ſaid afore) is a ſeparation from the Apoſtolick and pureſt time:] When it can never be proved, that it was in uſe, in thoſe times, or ſome good while after. The Analogy holds onelyonly upon Suppoſition: That if the Apoſtles did inſtitute and obſerve Eaſter as a Chriſtian Feſtival, (which is proved moſt improbable, or uncertain) they might proportionably, inſtitute and obſerve his Chriſtmas, which is more uncertain, if not certainly falſe.

But what ſay we, p. 256. n. 7.[To the Solemnities and Feſtivities of Ignatius and Polycarp, two Biſhops that lived in the Apoſtles times, obſerved from the very times of their deaths, and that in compliance with other the like Feſtivals of the Church before them; which muſt needs come home, to obſervation of Feſtivals p. 382in the **When as, theſe Martyrs died not till after all the Apoſtles, many years and there is not the leaſt mention of the Feſtivities of any of the Apoſtles, till many ages after.Apoſtles days.] To this, I ſay, many things. 1. The Dr. pittifully and poorly begs, [that thoſe Feaſts were inſtituted in compliance with other the like Feſtivals of the Church before them.] Whereas, if thoſe were Feaſts, as after they were uſed, they had better Antiquity then not onelyonly his Chriſtmas, but his Eaſter alſo, and had none before them; unleſs he will plead St. Stephens day, (who was a Martyr before them,) long after, put to attend upon Chriſtmas day. 2. If theſe Feaſts of Ignatius (which he often mentions here and after) were obſerved ſo near the Apoſtles days, (as he aſſerts) does not the Doctor, 1. caſt dirt in his Mothers face, for aboliſhing thoſe Feaſts, putting them out of the Calendar, and ſeparating from the Apoſtolick and pureſt times? 2. Does he not alſo much gratifie the Church of Rome (which he ſometimes cauſleſly caſts upon me) as more conformable to the pureſt times, in obſervation of thoſe Feſtivals, then his Mother the Church of England? 3. Is not he himſelf, a Separatiſt and Schiſmatick, in his compliance with his Mother, in his ſeparation from the Apoſtolick pureſt times? in caſting off Holy-days, of above fourteen hundred years ſtanding, from the very Apoſtles days? Let him ſee, what he will anſwer. And I ſhall onelyonly adde; If the Church of England, in King Edwards days, in raſing out of the Calendar thoſe Feaſts, did not ſeparate from the Apoſtolical, Univerſal Church; nor does it follow, that in laying aſide his other Feſtivals, ſhe hath made any ſeparation from that Church, the rather, becauſe he cannot prove his Chriſtmas Apoſtolical, as he would believe he hath proved thoſe Feaſts of Ignatius and Polycarp, n. 7.to be. Oh, [but there's no analogy betwixt the Church of Englands departing from Rome, and the Diatribiſts departing from p. 383the Church of England:] Where its obſervable, that he takes the Church of England, to be onelyonly, the Superiours, that is, the Biſhops, the Fathers of the Church, as Romaniſts do; thoſe of the inferiour Clergy, are none of the Church, no nor the Parliament of England. But if I remember aright, his Superiours the Biſhops were, laid aſide, (even by the King himſelf, excluded the Lords houſe) before his Feſtivals, and ſo had no Superiority in things agitated in Parliament, and then we made no Separation from our lawful ſuperiours, in this particular: And ſo his firſt difference is nothing. The ſecond is this, n. 8.[Thoſe things wherein the Church of England departed from the Romiſh opinions, and practices, were none of them ſuch as this of Feſtivals, common uſages of the univerſal, ancient primitive pureſt Church, but innovations unduely brought in, and impoſed upon all Chriſtians. [Yes, juſt the ſame, uſages of the ancient primitive Church, the Feaſts of Ignatius and Polycarp, obſerved near the Apoſtles days, as he ſays, and where is then the difference? If then, this be any advantage to the Romiſh Church, n. 9.ſhe may thank the Doctor for it, who pleads ſo much for ſome Feſtivals, to be in the Apoſtles days and pureſt times, that he hath made his Mother a Schiſmatick in raſing them out of the Calender &c. as was ſaid above. But I ſhall enter my proteſtation of diſcent to this propoſition alſo.

It is an eaſie thing for the Doctors great learning, to ſlight all, that comes from others, p. 257. n. 1.as worthy no reply: How ſolidly I have proved the obſervation of this Feſtival, by many among us, to be ſuperſtitious, is already evident, and will be more, ere long: though the Doctor will wink, and paſs it all by, as if he ſaw it not. 2. That contrary extremes of Superſtition, and profaneneſs, n. 2.may p. 384meet in the ſame perſon, may indeed ſeem a wonder and very ſtrange, but is too often exemplified, I have known (and I believe the Doctor too) ſome Sons of this Church, ſuperſtitious to admiration, who have been as profane, as almoſt the times yielded any: As if they had intended to make good that ſpeech of Socrates, cited by me, Feſt. pag. 171. [There are ſome, who think all whoredome (and drunkenneſs, &c.) to be a thing indifferent, that do contend for Feſtival dayes, as for life.] Nor is it ſuch an irrational thing in theſe times, to call the ſame man Papiſt firſt, and then Socinian: For as much, as ſome that are Papiſts in ſome opinions and practices, are alſo Socinians in other points, as might be proved. That I derive Superſtition from ſuper ſtatutum, is proved falſe, by his own confeſſion above. The reſt in numb. 3. hath been ſpoken to afore, and that of the Creed and Catechiſme is a foreign, and I paſs it by.

Who they are, that in theſe ſad and erroneous times do ſtand up againſt all the Sects and Hereſies, p. 259. n. 4.is evident enough; though I had ſaid nothing, and how little thoſe of the Doctors parties do appear to oppoſe them, is clear enough; partly becauſe they are willing to put that burthen upon thoſe, whom they eſteem their enemies, and partly becauſe they preach the ſame Doctrines of Arminius and Papiſts which themſelves do hold and publiſh: But if the Reader will ſee the Preface to the Doctors Practical Catechiſme, in the firſt Impreſsions, This Diatribiſt; as this Publicane. n. 5.he will finde, [a Phariſee could not have ſaid more, in his ſolemneſt magnificat,] then the Doctor hath ſuffered to be ſaid of himſelf. It may be, he was ſenſible of it, and therefore hath wiſely left it out in his laſt Impreſſion: And how he ſlights and undervalues both the learning and perſons p. 385of his Adverſaries, hath been ſhewed above, and may again ere long. But it ſeems the touch of Arminianiſme, hath enfired the Doctors zeal; whereof he is as guilty as any I know, witneſs his Catechiſme, and his Fundamentals. I ask in a word; Durſt the Doctor have broached ſuch Doctrine in his Prelates time, in K. James his dayes, or beginning of King Charles? We ſee how dangerous a thing Toleration is: Yet if we ſpeak of pride, what hath an humble Publican to do, with an high flown Arminian, who dare anſwer the Apoſtles, quis te diſcrevit? with an, ego me decerno: And when you hear men plead ſo much for Free-will, and Free-will offerings and uncommanded perfection above both Law and Goſpel, and tell us confidently they may and do expect a greater reward for uncommanded virtues, then for commanded duties; are not ſuch men almoſt as high as Papiſts and Jeſuites, who dare ſay to God, [He ſhould be unjuſt, if he do not give eternal life, n. 5.to their good works?] But to vent his anger, the Doctor charges me with two palpable untruths; firſt, that I ſay abſolutely, that Feſtivals are forbidden by the ſecond and fourth Commandment, when I onelyonly ſay, [If they be made parts, of Worſhip, as holy as the Lords day, &c.] Then 2. that I think, [grace may not be received in vain:] When, upon his own confeſſion I meant, that God does not give it, onelyonly to incline and leave men free to uſe it, or not to uſe it, ſee ad p. 199. n. 6. and p. 200. n. 9. And having done this, he charges himſelf with two commonly reputed errours. 1. To favour ſlaviſh fear; which moſt Divines condemn. 2. To favour mercenary obedience, which natural men have diſallowed, as leſs ingenuous; and our Saviour checked ſome of his followers for, p. 386[Ye ſeek me, becauſe ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.] See above, ad p. 26. n. 20. of the firſt; and ad pag. 207. numb. 15. of the ſecond.

I am again charged (unjuſtly) with change of his words, p. 260. n. 1.upon a deſigne; He ſaid, [The ſolemnity hath no other deſign, but to teach us what we have received from God, and aſſiſt us, to render a pious acknowledgement of it, &c.] which I interpret, of the deſigne, in the firſt Inſtitutors of this ſervice. Surely if we will ſpeak rationally and properly, the Solemnity it ſelf is not capable of having deſignes, it muſt then be, in the firſt Inſtitutors, or ſecond obſervers: And if ſo, the example of Gideons golden Ephod, or his deſigne, in ſetting it up, is parallel enough with his caſe of Festivals: Their deſignes equally in appearance, good; the iſſue equally bad; both have proved ſnares in aftertimes. n. 3.From whence it followes, not (as he infers,) [That every Festival deſigned as a publick pious acknowledgement, &c. is to be looked at, as a ſnare, to all the people of God,] but, that, in the ſervice of God, no plauſible deſigne, can priviledge an humane Inſtitution, from being a ſnare to Gods people, being made parts of Worſhip, &c. as in time Gideons Ephod proved, and his Festivals alſo amongſt Papiſts, as I there ſaid. And ſure, (for all his Logical notions) examples are ſo far argumentative. But how then could he have given a laſh to the Lords day, if he had not thus Syllogized? n. 4.[For then indeed the Lords day, which is ſuppoſed to be deſigned for thoſe good ends, muſt upon the ſame account, be aboliſht alſo.] Upon what account? becauſe, it's ſuppoſed to be of the ſame Inſtitution with his Festival? this he will aſſert anon; Or becauſe it may, by ſome, be abuſed to p. 387Superſtition, as his Ephod was? This, I ſuppoſe he intends: As if the abuſe of an Ordinance of God, were to be parallel'd with the like abuſe of an Ordinance of man. All Gods own Ordinances may be abuſed to Superſtition, but I hope, the Doctor will grant another remedy to them, then abolition: But humane Inſtitutions, (if they may at all be admitted into the Worſhip of God) if they prove ſnares to the people of God, deſerve no other remedy, then the brazen Serpent, and Gideons Ephod found, a total abolition. The Doctors inference therefore, upon the Lords day, proceeds upon his ſuppoſition, that it's Authority is the ſame, with his Feſtivals: or elſe, if the one, the Lords day, be of Divine, and the other, his Feſtival, of humane Inſtitution, the one, for ſuch abuſes, muſt be aboliſhed, the other onelyonly purged from ſuch abuſes.

We are now coming to make good the charge of Superſtition and Will-worſhip upon the late obſervation of his Festival: p. 261. n. 1.which the Doctor hath no mind to meddle with; but pleads his largeneſs on theſe ſubjects already, to eaſe himſelf of the trouble, and (as he pretends) his Reader alſo, of an ungrateful penance. When as I dare ſay, nothing would have been more grateful to many of his Readers, then that he had clearly waſhed his hands of this charge, or acknowledged the truth of his guilt. And now I ſee the reaſon in part, why he waved that neceſſary debate, of the power of the Church, to inſtitute Ceremonies, ſuch as his Festivals are pleaded to be. In my 9. Sect. of Feſt. I propounded and ſtated the queſtion, as knowing that it would be of great uſe, in the following parts of this diſcourſe, but he lays it aſide, and will by no means, be brought into the liſt of this debate. p. 388See ſupra ad p. 249. n. 1. His firſt argument to free the obſervers from appearance of Will-worſhip, was this; [They obſerve this uſage in obedience to the Laws of the Church.] I anſwered, that he ought to have proved, firſt, that they which inſtituted the Feſtival had a lawful power to do it: elſe Papiſts may uſe the ſame argument for their Holy-days, n. 3.&c.] Now here his anſwer; [1. My not proving of this, was founded in my ſuppoſing it, that as Magistrates in general, ſo Governors of a Church, are inveſted with power to inſtitute Circumſtances of Worſhip, &c.] But here are many miſadventures: 1. That he ſuppoſes, what he ſhould have here or ſome where proved; at leaſt after my challenge of him to prove it, Sect. 9. and ſtating the queſtion for him. 2. The Magiſtrates civil, have a larger power, to make Lawes in things indifferent, then the Governours of the Church, in Religious affairs, who are tied up to the Laws of the word. 3. The Doctor changes the words of the queſtion, which was of Ceremonies, made parts of Religion, or Worſhip, and not of Circumſtances of commanded Worſhip, as, time, place, &c. The Papiſts for certain do make their Feſtivals, Holy-dayes, parts of their Religious Worſhip, and may not they plead for obſervation of them, p. 262. n. 4.[They do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church.] And ſo in other uſages of theirs: Hear his ſecond anſwer to this; [This is interpretable as a far greater kindneſs to them, then I have ever been guilty of, the Church may command in lawful things, therefore it may do ſo in unlawful things.] But firſt, what are the things unlawful, which the Church of Rome commands? adoration of Images, the Maſs, &c. He muſt know, that this will not reach to my anſwer, which is p. 389of obſerving by others, not commanding by the Church; and he cannot condemn the obſervers of things unlawful, commanded by the Church, till he have firſt proved, that the Church had no power to command ſuch things: So by proportion, he cannot juſtifie obſervers of Feſtivals by this, that they do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church, till he have not ſuppoſed, but proved, the Church had power to inſtitute them; wherein the force of my anſwer lay, though the Doctor would not ſee it. 2. But ſpeak to the point of Holy-days; which the Doctor thinks as lawful as they do: If a Papiſt ſhould anſwer my propoſition and queſtion; Why do you obſerve your Feſtivals? he would anſwere juſt as the Doctor does; he does it in obedience to the Church, and therefore it is no Will-worſhip. But ſay I, you muſt firſt prove the Church hath power to inſtitute them: No, ſayes he, with the Doctor, I ſuppoſe that, and therefore do not prove it. What can the Doctor ſay more? He may not now come and ſay, the Church of Rome commands things unlawful: (for he and they ſuppoſe Feſtivals to be lawful,) and if he ſay ſo, he condemns himſelf with them. If he ſhall ſay, they command them as parts of Worſhip, and make them Holy-dayes, and that makes them unlawful: he muſt have recourſe to my anſwer. It will not excuſe the obſervers to ſay, they do it in obedience to the lawes of the Church, unleſs he prove they had power to command thoſe things unlawful, which he cannot do: And if this anſwer be good, that the Church of Rome commands things unlawful when ſhe makes her Feſtival as parts of Religion and Worſhip, &c. I dare put it upon this iſſue, that the Doctor is as guilty as they in theſe crimes, and does them a far greater kindneſs, p. 390then I have ever been guilty of. By my anſwer to this firſt compariſon, he may ſee the unjuſtneſs of the other three, which he would fain put as abſurdities upon me, and make me ridiculous to his Readers. I could eaſily retort them, but I forbear recrimination. I ſhall onelyonly ſay, the Doctor varies the queſtion, and then makes his Inferences and Compariſons; for the ſtate of the queſtion was, whether the Church may ordain, and private perſons obſerve Festivals, as Holy-dayes, parts of Worſhip, &c. and then I dare make compariſons and inferences with him. 1. It is as lawful for the Church of Rome, or any Church, to command other unlawful things, as to command Feſtivals or obſerve them, as Holy-dayes, as parts of Worſhip, &c. for both are equally unlawfull. 2. There is equal unreaſonableneſs, in beſainting thoſe that are gotten into the Calendar at Rome, and conſecrating, that is, making holy a day, and a part of Worſhip, as in conſecrating a day, to the commemorating of the birth of Chriſt, upon the ſame terms: eſpecially ſome of them, which were obſerved near the Apoſtles times, as that of Ignatius and Polycarp, is ſaid to be, which cannot be proved of his Feſtival: But compariſons are odious, and I forbear the reſt: he may eaſily make it out. The onelyonly queſtion is, Whether the Doctor (as he does plead for ſome Feſtivals, which they of Rome obſerve as well as he, ſo) do not make them (as they do) Holy-days, and parts of Worſhip, &c. and ſo be equally guilty of the crimes charged upon them, as they are, which ſhall by and by be manifeſted: But ſomething elſe is firſt conſiderable.

The Doctor juſtified the obſervers, by their obedience to the fifth Commandment: I anſwered, p. 391that he might better have juſtified their obedience by the fourth Commandment, having founded dayes of publick Worſhip on that Commandment. [It is, (ſaid he) a deſignation of Time for the ſpecial performing of publick Worſhip, as neceſſary.] Now I ſuppoſed, that he by deſignation of Time, had meant, the ſpecial Time there deſigned, a weekly Sabbath; or one day in ſeven neceſſarily to be obſerved, and then he might have juſtified their obſervation, by that Commandment, and needed not have reduced it to the fifth Commandment. But it ſeemes I was miſtaken, for he intended no ſuch thing. Hear what he ſays, [The difference is very conceiveable betwixt time or times generally conſidered, for Gods ſervice, p. 262. n. 6.and this or that particular time:] The meaning is, that ſometime is neceſſary by that Commandment, but the particular deſignation, is at the Churches diſpoſing: the former belongs to the fourth Commandment, the latter to the fifth. See but how liberal the Doctor is, to God. 1. [That God ſhould have ſome time aſſigned, for his ſervice, is of the very law of nature, and ſo much of morality, there is fundamental to the poſitive precept of the weekly Sabbath in the fourth Commandment.] Some time, why ſome time is of the Law of Nature, for the Doctor to eat his breakfast; in as much, as he can do nothing, without ſome time, and this is all the morality the great School-man, and the Doctor his Symmists, allow to the fourth Commandment: which would have been moral, or rather natural, had there never been any fourth Commandment placed in the Decalogue: But ſeeing God is Lord of us and all our time, it had been fitter to have ſaid, All our time was due to God for his ſervice, except ſome time be p. 392allowed by him, as neceſſary, for our worldly buſineſs: Beſides, this ſome time to be aſſigned for Gods ſervice, is not ſaid to be deſigned by God, in particular; but onelyonly, that ſome time muſt be aſſigned; that is, by the Church, which is poorly begged, as afore. And this is the Helena for which they ſo much contend: and no marvel; for if they can but get this granted, that the power of deſignation of the neceſſary ſufficient Time for Gods ſervice (a thing of moſt high concernment) is in the Church, we muſt grant, that ſhe hath power enough to inſtitute what Ceremonies, ſhe ſhall think uſefull, in the ſervice of God. But he is yet more liberal. [2. The fourth Commandment being given to the Jews, for one day in ſeven, as a fit and moderate proportion of time, it might equitably be inferred, that a Chriſtian ſhould at leaſt ſet apart one day in ſeven for our great Chriſtian purpoſes, &c.] But his Colleagues ſay, that proportion of time, in the fourth Commandment was Ceremoniall, and ſo void; and one day in eight or ten might be ſufficient, if the Church ſo pleaſed. And what is this equitableneſs the Doctor ſpeaks of; not juſt and neceſſary, it may not be leſs, yea, muſt be ſo much at leaſt; but fit, and convenient, to be deſigned by the Church, nay, by every Chriſtian, for ſo he ſays: For if he ſhould yeild it neceſſary by this Commandment, to ſet apart one day in ſeven, he grants the fourth Commandment to be moral, for ſo much time; which ere long, he will, as others do, deny. There would then remain nothing to be done, but to finde out that particular day of ſeven to be aſſigned for God and his ſervice, and who hath power to do it. For that he is yet more liberal, then ſome of his partners, [The firſt day of the week, and accordingly p. 393he ſuppoſes it inſtituted by the Apoſtles of Chriſt.] Surely, this is one of the Doctors Free-will-offerings, and we (if not God) are much beholden to him, if he would not retract this gift, which he will do anon; founding the Lords-day and his Feſtivals on the ſame Authority of the Church. But I take what he grants, kindly; If the firſt day of the week, was by Apoſtolical, that is, Divine Inſtitution, as one of ſeven: I ask, by what Rule or Commandment, did they, make that day neceſſary and moral, if not by the fourth Commandment? and then, it's moral, not onelyonly for ſome time, but for one day in ſeven, which will hardly be yeilded. And again, if the Lords-day be of Apoſtolicall, divine inſtitution, according to the fourth Commandment, it is Holy, above, not onelyonly all other days in the week, but above all his Feſtivals, for which he hath nothing in the fourth Commandment, nor can prove them of Apoſtolicall Inſtitution; the moſt he pretends to, is but Apostolical practice, and obſervation.

And therefore (fearing he hath yeilded too much) he ſtarts back, and ſays, [As among the Jews, n. 7.beſide the weekly Sabbath, required by the fourth Commandment, they had many Feſtivities, ſome appointed by God himſelf, others inſtituted by men. Yet conſtantly obſerved, without prejudice to the fourth Commandment: So nothing hinders, but under the Goſpel, the Church may ordain Chriſtian Feaſts, &c.] As for thoſe Feaſts appointed by men, they have their place below, where they ſhall be ſpoken to. For thoſe of Gods appointment, we do not think the fourth Commandment excluſive, to hinder God, for appointing what dayes he pleaſes; onelyonly, it preſuppoſing the power of ordaining Holy-days, to belong to God, it excludes men, for p. 394ſetting up any as holy, without his leave. It cannot therefore, be inferred reaſonably, [God had power to appoint what Holy-days he pleaſed to the Jewes; ergo, the Church under the Goſpel, may appoint as many as ſhe will.] Beſides, thoſe Festivals of the Jewes, (beſide the weekly Sabbath) were typical and Ceremonial, and a part of their yoke; which being taken off by Chriſt, it becomes not the Church to put the ſame and a greater, upon the necks of Chriſtians. Adde to this, that thoſe Feſtivals, were not properly reducible to the fourth Commandment, requiring but one in ſeven, whereas the Doctor will fetch them all in under his fundamental morality of ſome times, to be aſſigned for Gods ſervice, by the fourth Commandment, that is, ſuch as the Church ſhall appoint, and yet pleads the fifth Commandment, to juſtifie obedience to them, [not as an act of Will-worſhip, but of honour and obſervance to this ordinance of the Church, and ſo a duty of the fifth Commandment.] Which ſure needed not, if the fourth Commandment be morall for aſſigning ſome times for Gods ſervice, by the Church, for that Commandment will both command, and juſtifie their obedience.

That we Chriſtians are by Chriſt reduced to the fourth Commandment, as for one day in ſeven to be holy, ſo for our allowance of ſix days for our own works; p. 263. n. 8.he ſays, 1. [It hath not the leaſt appearance of truth in it: where did he reduce us to the fourth Commandment?) Did not the Dr. ſay even now, n. 6. That it's equitable by that Commandment, that a Chriſtian ſhould at leaſt ſet apart, one day in ſeven? for more then one in ſeven, let him look for authority: one in ſeven ſhall ſerve our turn: And I ask, by what Rule or p. 395Authority does the Doctor preſume to take the allowance of the ſix dayes, for his own occaſions▪ if not by the fourth Commandment? and will he not by the ſame Commandment, allow God, one of ſeven? But where did Chriſt reduce us to the fourth Commandment? I anſwer, in Matth. 5. where he profeſſes, he came not to deſtroy, but to fulfil and ſtabliſh the Moral Law, whereof the fourth, for one in ſeven is one: But then ſays he, ['Tis viſible what the conſequence muſt be, even an obligation to the Jewiſh Sabbath, for that certainly was the ſubject of that Commandment.] Hath not the Dr. As he did the ſecond Commandment above ad p. 44. n. 8 The Dr. leaps from p. 152. of mine, to p. 157.now deſtroyed one Commandment more out of the Decalogue, which Chriſt came to eſtabliſh? or is not this, the foreign, of the Dr. that the ſubject of the fourth Commandment, was that ſeventh day Sabbath? for if ſo, it is as fully void as the commandment for the Paſchal Sabbath: or elſe the Doctor muſt turn, either Jew, and obſerve that day, or Anabaptiſt and Quaker, &c. and make no Sabbath, but every day a Sabbath. I leave it to his choice. The reſt that follows in this Section, is impertinent to the main buſineſs: Some thing he ſays, about the miſtake of the day and venial ſins; not fit to be paſſed by: For venial ſins, n. 11, 12.he hath this paſſage; [He that talks of venial ſins, muſt be preſumed not to exclude the blood of Chriſt, &c.] I ſpake of venial ſins, in the notion of Papiſts; but ſure they do not include the blood of Chriſt, when they talk of venial ſins; but rather exclude it, ſaying, That men need not ask God forgiveneſs for them; but themſelves may ſatisfie for them, by an Ave Maria, a Pater noſter, or a knock on the breaſt, &c. And the Doctors language is too like theirs; [The excuſe of blameleſs ignorance will waſh away greater errors, then this, if an error.] As holy water waſhes away venial ſins p. 396with them. As for the miſtake of the day, to be no ſin, I intended it ad bominem, to the Doctor, ſuppoſing and making the day to be an Holy-day, and part of Worſhip, as the Sabbath, and Paſchal day were: wherein to miſtake the day, was criminous. Yet let the Doctor conſider how near he and others have been to ſin, upon the miſtake of the day; in the Collect for Chriſtmas day; they uſed to pray thus, [Almighty God, which haſt given us this day, thy Son to be born of a pure Virgin, &c.] If Chriſt was not born on this day (as it's very uncertain) is not this a manifeſt untruth? telling it, not onelyonly to men, but to God too in their holy Prayers: But enough of that. The Superſtition and Will-worſhip are the crimes that were charged upon his obſervation of the Feſtival, oftentimes before, and here more fully and directly; but the Doctor will take no notice of it, but leaps over five or ſix leaves together. p. 264. n. 14And mark how he excuſes this omiſſion: [What Superſtition is charged by Chemnitius, on Papiſts obſervation of their Holy-dayes, is all anſwered before it be produced, by this conſideration, that Chemnitius allows this and other Feſtivals, which is all he contended for, who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of Papiſts.] But, firſt, though Chemnitius did allow of his Feſtivals, yet not of his Superſtition in the obſervation of them, any more in him, then in Papists. 2. The Doctor hath taken upon him to be advocate for ſome Feſtivals, which are in the Papists Calendar at leaſt, as well as in ours in England, and pleads for them with the ſame arguments that they do. 3. The ſame Superſtitions charged upon Papiſts obſervation of their Holy-days, are by me there, charged upon ſome, yea, many amongſt us, in ſome of thoſe p. 397particulars, and the inſtances are all taken out of the Doctors Tract of Feſtivals, and ſo intended him for one of the guilty perſons; but becauſe it ſeems, I did not name the Doctor, he takes no notice of all this; I ſhall therefore now charge home, and lay it ſo in his way (as between two walls) that he cannot avoid the ſeeing of it, unleſs he will tergiverſari, turn back, or elſe fly over all, as formerly he hath done; or rather (which I wiſh) fall down before the Truth, and give Glory to God.

But before I come to demonſtrate, that the Doctor is, foreign, ſelf-condemned of thoſe two crimes, I deſire it may be remembred, firſt, That I having ſet down ſeveral Species of Superſtition, p. 6. ſ. 5, &c. and moſt of them taken out of the Doctor himſelf in his Tract. of Superst. he puts in no exception againſt them, but ſeemes (if ſilence be conſent) to grant them all: Some at leaſt he aſſents to, in this diſcourſe, p. 30. n. 30. & 32. 2. That here again I having ſhewed the ſeveral ways of the Superſtition, charged by Chemnitius, on the obſervation of Holy-days, by the Papiſts, and applied them, in particular to himſelf; he neither gives conſent to them by his ſilence, or willfully declines to vindicate himſelf from the charge. For if he could not aſſent unto them, it concern'd him to have denied and oppoſed them, in both the places, as dangerous grounds, to conclude againſt his own opinion and practice, and had given me occaſion thereby, to confirm them, by Reaſon, and Teſtimonies of Orthodox Divines: which being not by him done, I might the rather take them as granted, and onelyonly borrow the propoſitions from him, and leave him or the Reader to make up the concluſion: as thus, firſt, [To place p. 398more holineſs in days, then God hath placed in them, is ſuperstitious:] So Chemnitius aſſerts, ſo I laid it down Superſt, Sect. 10. and it is generally the judgement of our Divines, upon this ſufficient reaſon, becauſe [God onelyonly can Sanctifie things or times for the Sanctifying of thoſe that uſe them:] This is thus far yeilded by the Dr. himſelf, [That to place more holineſs in them, then is due to them, is faulty, Superſt. ſ. 50.] [If I count it holy in that degree, then I offend not,] implying if he did more, he then offended; and being there provoked by me, to ſhew what degrees of holineſs, a Church, or Perſon, puts upon things or times, he again waves it in his laſt, as able to aſign none; and then the propoſition is undeniable, [To place holineſs, or more holineſs, in dayes then God hath placed in them, is Superſtitious.]

But the Doctor (and his Symmiſts) places holineſs in days, where God hath placed none, and more then God hath placed in them: That God hath placed no Holineſs in his Feſtival, is confeſſed; by denying Chriſt or his Apoſtles to have inſtituted it. Of Feſt. Sect. 28, 77. That he places holineſs in it, appears by his own words, when he ſays, [The day is to be eſteemed above other days of the year; (Lords days too it ſeems) conſecrating it from common to ſacred uſes,] Ibid. ſ. 59. that for his opinion and judgement: And that in practice, he placed more, at leaſt equal holineſs in it, with the Lords day; he confeſſes, [That the day hath been obſerved, if not much more, certainly as ſtrictly as any Lords day in the year, &c.] Sect. 24. Yea, more ſtrictly (ſaid I) with more ſolemn ſervices, with ſtricter ceſſation from ſports, then on the Lords day, on which ſports were permited, p. 399but no touching of Cards or Dice that day. Ibid. The Aſſumption then is juſtified, the Doctor does place more holineſs in his Feſtivals, then God hath placed in it. Therefore he is Superſtitious.

2. [To eſteem the obſervation of that day, and the ſervices done on that day, to be better & more pleaſing and acceptable to God, than the obſervation of any other day, (the Lords day it ſelf) and then the ſervices done on other days, is a ſuperſtitious vanity.] So Chemnitius. So I aſſerted, Superſt. ſ. 13. to which the Doctor enters no diſcent: or if he ſhould, I would thus confirm it, [becauſe it faſtens ſome promiſe on Chriſt, which he hath not made in the Goſpel:] The Drs. own words, in a like caſe, Superſt. ſ. 45. But the Doctor eſteems the obſervation of that day and the ſervices done on that day, to be better, more pleaſing and acceptable to God, then, &c. For the obſervation of the day, he makes it a Free-will-offering, to dedicate and conſecrate the day to God, and aſſerts of the Inſtitution of it; See this account, p. 197. n. 4. & p. 229. n. 14. more and greater acceptance, &c.[It is (more then lawful) pious in it ſelf.] Sect. 77 And the ſervices to be more acceptable to God, then on other days, reſults from his frequent aſſertion, [That ſuch ſervices being not commanded, are the more acceptable becauſe voluntary:] So he ſays, [When in the ſervice of God, a man out of a pious affection ſhall do any thing elſe, beſide what God hath commanded, by any particular precept, this action of his is to be accounted ſo much more commendable and acceptable to God:] Will-worſh. ſ. 16. And again, [The more acceptable for the voluntaries, as being in that, parallel to thoſe oblations, which are pronounced moſt acceptable, ſ. 19.] But I aſſume, the obſervation (and dedication) of his Feſtival, p. 400together with the ſervices done upon the day, are ſuch as God hath not commanded by any particular precept, but voluntary; and therefore the more acceptable, by the Doctors Divinity; the concluſion then may not be refuſed; therefore he is ſuperſtitious.

3. [To place the Worſhip of God in obſervation of a day, which God hath not made holy, is ſuperstitious:] So Chemnitius charges the Papiſts to do, and this was by me laid down as a Species of Superſtition, Sect. 6. & 8. Of Superſt. Whereunto we have the Doctors conſent or ſilence: But if he ſhould deny it, it might be proved thus, both from the definition of Superſtition given by the School-man, [A vice contrary to Religion in the exceſs,] which the Scripture calls, addition to the Rule of Worſhip, and alſo by the ſcope and ſum of the ſecond Commandment; [God muſt preſcribe his own Worſhip,] which the Doctor himſelf hath gloſſed, as the ſenſe of that Commandment, as is cleared above. And it may yet be farther confirmed from his words and grants. [To make new ſorts or kindes of Worſhip, is by him condemned as Superſtition, p. 12. n. 13.] But to place the Worſhip of God in the obſervation of any day, that God hath not made holy, is to make a new ſort or kind of Worſhip, and conſequently, is Superſtition.

But the Doctor places the Worſhip of God in the obſervation of a day, which God (confeſſedly) hath not made holy, his Feſtival: This I ſhall prove many wayes. 1. His Feſtival is one of his Free-will-offerings, which anciently was a part of Worſhip. 2. He calls it, Will-worſhip, which includes voluntary uncommanded Worſhip, (ſo he often explains it) and ſo being uncommanded Worſhip, it is a new ſort, or kinde of Worſhip, which p. 401God hath not commanded. 3. He calls the conſecration of it, a voluntary oblation, (which ſignifies Worſhip.) [An oblation to God in honour to him; Sect. 59. Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Chriſt, Sect. 28.] 4. He equalls the obſervation of it, with the Lords-day, both in abſtaining from labours, and making the very reſt it ſelf an oblation to God; as we ſhall hear in the next. All theſe make it a part of Worſhip; as high as the Lordsday, our Chriſtian Sabbath, made holy by Divine inſtitution: Therefore again, the Doctor in ſo doing, is ſuperſtitious.

[4. To forbid labours on that day, when they hinder not the publick Worſhip (if God have not made it holy) is ſuperſtitious.] The reaſon is, becauſe God allows men ſix days for their own works. And though it be lawful for the Magiſtrate or Church, to ſet a part a Time ordinarily for publick Worſhip, yet not to prohibit labours all the day, when that publick Worſhip is ended, and to make Reſt neceſſary for the whole day: for that is to make it as holy, as God himſelf did and doth the Sabbath.

But the Doctor forbids labours, and requires reſt, from ſports, much more ſure from labours, all the day of his Feſtival: So he ſays, Feſt. Sect. 59. [People may not without offence to God, follow their lawful (as that ſignifies ordinary, particular, or on other days lawful) vocations; — Reſt it ſelf is farther capable of the honor of being an oblation to God, if in honour to him, we thus offer ſome part of our time unto his ſervice.] What did God require more on his Sabbath, to make it holy? [In it thou ſhalt do no manner of work] It's true indeed, the Doctor ſpeaks there of the Inſtitution of the Church, and the command of God to honour p. 402our ſuperiours, by ſubmiting to them, and ſeems to limit this ſtrictneſs of Reſt to the Publick Aſſembly on that day: But when he makes Reſt an oblation to God, and forbids ſports, cards, and dice on that day, I can hardly believe the Doctor will allow of lawful labours, Following the plough or attending the ſhop. p. 258 n. 3.after the publick Aſſembly is over: Yea, it is known, that it was held, and accordingly cenſured as more criminous to work on this day, then on the Lords-day: True it is alſo, that the Publick Worſhip of God on any day, requires for the time, ceſſation from our own works (as neceſſarily inconſiſtent at the ſame time) but this is equally required on any day, when publick (or private) Worſhip is commanded, as on his Feſtival day. But to make it neceſſary to Reſt from labours, and a ſin for people to follow their vocations, on the Feſtival day, when the Worſhip is ended, is that we charge with the crime of Superſtition: And this the Doctor does; ergo, he is ſuperſtitious.

[5. To place more virtue in things or times, then either naturally they have in them, or by the Inſtitution of God, is ſuperſtitious:] So I aſſerted, Sect. 14. So the Doctor aſſerted of Superſt. ſ. See account. p. 37. n. 17. placing more virtue in them, is a fault.45. [The placing of more virtue in ſome things, then either naturally, or by the Rule of Gods word, may be thought to belong to them, is a Nimiety, and Superſtition, and the reaſons are ſtrong to confirm it.] [The doing of which is either utterly groundleſs, and then it is folly; or elſe it faſtens ſome promiſe on Chriſt, which he hath not made in the Goſpel.]

But the Doctor places more virtue in ſome things and times particularly, in his Feſtival, then either naturally or by the Rule of Gods word belongs unto them: This I ſhall prove from himſelf: p. 403To expect acceptance, and greater reward, for uncommanded ſervice, or Worſhip, then for commanded duties, is to place more virtue in them, then either naturally, or by the Rule of the word belongs to them, for there is no promiſe made to ſuch uncommanded virtues, or Worſhip: as hath been proved above: But the Doctor does expreſly aſſert, and confidently expect, better acceptance, and greater reward, for uncommanded ſervices; or his Will worſhip, pag. 229. n. 14, 15. Therefore he places more virtue in his Will-worſhip, (ſuch he makes his Feſtival) then doth belong unto it, and conſequently, he proves himſelf to be ſuperſtitious.

6. Laſtly, [All uncommanded Worſhip, (foreign) is ſuperſtitious:] It's made by all our Divines, a Species of Superſtition, and by the School-man; to Worſhip God, ut non debet, with uncommanded Worſhip, is a kinde of Superſtition; Yea, and by the Doctor himſelf, it muſt be ſo concluded, thus, [All falſe Worſhip is ſuperſtition,] ſo here p. 59. n. 3. [Superſtition is the giving of falſe Worſhip to the true God.] And elſewhere, but all uncommanded Worſhip, is falſe Worſhip, the Doctor I know denies this propoſition, but without all juſt reaſon; yet ſo he ſays in the ſame place; [Falſe worſhip is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worſhip: for certainly all ſuch, is not falſe.] But I have ſufficiently proved that propoſition, thus, [All forbidden Worſhip, is falſe Worſhip;] that the Doctor cannot deny: But all uncommanded Worſhip, is forbidden: This is proved above, by the ſcope of the ſecond Commandment, and granted ſo, by the Doctors own gloſs; God muſt preſcribe his own Worſhip; ergo, no man may invent and preſcribe it, and conſequently, all not commanded p. 404by God is forbidden, and by a further conſequence, ſuperſtitious. And from the Doctor himſelf once more, [To invent and make new ſorts or kindes of Worſhip, is ſuperſtitious, p. 12. n. 13. but to ſet up uncommanded Worſhip, that is, not commanded by God, is to invent and make new ſorts of Worſhip: Therefore it is ſuperſtitious: Thus the Major is good. But the Doctor pleading for his Feſtival as he does, ſets up uncommanded Worſhip: That he makes it a part of Worſhip, is proved above, in the third Argument. And making it an example of his Will-worſhip, he grants it to be Worſhip: That it is not commanded by God, was alſo granted, Will-worſhip he explains, by uncommanded Worſhip, or will-deviſed Worſhip: It is then an uncommanded Worſhip, and ſo ſuperstitious. And thus we have proved, from the Drs. own Aſſertions, and practice, that in obſervation of his Festival, he was groſly ſuperſtitious, and (whether he will confeſs it or no,) is ſelf-condemned. I ſhall leave it to the judgement of the Reader, and proceed to conſider how he will excuſe the matter of Riot, attending on it.

There are many things of leſſer concernment, little to the main buſineſs, which I ſhall therefore paſs by: One thing may not be omitted, the Good will the Doctor bears to the Lords day; every way to equal it at leaſt, with his Feſtivals. For here, and n. p. 266. n. 5.7. & 16.35. Becauſe the Lords-day is ſubject to the ſame abuſes of Riot and profaneneſs, with his Feſtival, he would weaken the argument for abolition of his Feaſts; [That if abuſe muſt aboliſh a custome, it might hazard the Lordsday, which hath been ſo abuſed.] But we have ſaid afore, that there is not the ſame reaſon for Divine Inſtitutions, and humane Inventions, in the Worſhip p. 405of God. The former muſt not be aboliſhed for any abuſes; but the latter, when abuſes do almoſt inſeparably ſtick to them, the beſt way is, to ſeparate them from the ſervice of God. If he ſay, n. 14. & 16might not Reformation ſerve but abſciſion onelyonly? Truly, it is little for the credit of his Governours, that in ſo long time, as ſince the Reformation, they never attempted any Reformation of the Riot and Profanations of his Feſtival, but rather countenanced them, in their own and others Families, when the abuſes, not of Riot and Revellings onelyonly, but of Superſtition alſo (for ſo I meant) have been ſo notorious.

I ſaid, Sect. 18. [The Heathen uſages, do imply, that the Feſtival it ſelf was inſtituted to gratifie the Heathens, by imitation of their Feaſts at the ſame time of the year.] n. 6.The Doctor ſpeaks a little to the uſages, but denies the Feſtival to have been inſtituted to gratifie the Heathens, though he confeſſed the Saturnalia to be celebrated in the ſame monethmonth of Decemb. Sect. 63. But this makes it very ſuſpicious, the Feast was inſtituted to gratifie the Heathen; hear a great Papiſt ſpeak his judgement in this matter; [What wonder if the grown cuſtomes among the Gentiles (we may adde the Jews alſo) were ſuch, as from which though they were converted to Chriſtianiſme, Baron, ad An. 58. p. 606. Quid mirum, &cthey were yet ſo hardly taken, that it might ſeem impoſſible to put them quite off? what wonder I ſay, if the moſt holy Biſhops have granted them place, in the Worſhip of God.] But hear another more expreſly, in matter of Feaſts, it is Hoſpinian, after Beat. Rhenanus, in Tertul. de Coron. Mil. [The old Biſhops were wont, p. 406De Orig. Feſt. volluere veteres Epiſcop. &c.when they could not call men from the Superſtitions of the Heathens, by the Preaching of the word, to ſeek at leaſt to do it, by obſerving their Holy-dayes, with their own Worſhip. But this was to drive out one nail with another, no way to take off the Superſtition. Albeit then, the beginning of theſe Solemnities was tolerable at firſt, yet at laſt, they grew to ſuch an heap of Superſtitions, that they became the fountain and beginning of horrible errours and Suſterſtitions] I might adde to theſe Doctor Jackſon, Orig. of …dol. Sect. 4. c. 23.who ſheweth the firſt occaſion of Superſtition in Chriſtians to have been, the infirmities, whereby it came to paſs, that Heatheniſh (and Jewiſh) Rites, where to men had been long accuſtomed, could not eaſily be extirpated: See more there, the miſchief of ſuch Accommodations.

The Apoſtle (ſaid I) exerciſed his diſcipline upon the Agapae, thoſe Love Feaſts, as well as upon the riotous part: p. 269. n. 17To this the Doctor ſays, [It was the Lords Supper into which that exceſs was crept. Did Paul (he asks) deſtroy and aboliſh this Feaſt, the Lords Supper?] He is ſtill unhappy in his compariſons of Divine Inſtitutions, with Humane Inventions and Additions: He tells us, n. 18. [There were two parts of the Lords Supper: firſt Bread and Wine taken in commemoration of Chriſts Body and Blood: the other in eating and drinking together more liberally: this latter was taken away upon unreformable abuſes of it.] But then ſure, the Apoſtle needed not to exerciſe his diſcipline upon the firſt part, the Lords Supper, by abolition of a Divine Inſtitution; but upon the Feaſting part; wherein might be diſtinguiſhed, 1. The Love feaſt it ſelf (begun upon good intentions, to relieve the poor, and teſtifie brotherly p. 407affections) 2. The Riot and exceſs that crept into it; which was ſeparable from the former, and yet the Apoſtle takes away the Feaſt it ſelf, as well as the Riotous part; becauſe, as the Doctor ſays, of the too common unreformable abuſes of it: Say the ſame of his Feſtival, abus'd both to Superſtition and Riot.

But he tells us (out of Juſtin Martyr) how this Feaſt was reformed; [Offerings not leſſened, p. 270. n. 20but otherwiſe diſpoſed of, and that which was not eaten at the Lords table, was kept in a common bank for the poor, &c.] Which is, as if he ſhould ſay, the Feaſt it ſelf was aboliſhed, but that Charity which was ſpent formerly in Riot, was otherwiſe diſpoſed of, and if this will ſerve his turn; it ſhall ſerve mine alſo, in reformation of his Feſtival; as he preſcribes, n. 21. But how ſatisfyingly the Doctor excuſes his indulgence to the eating and ſporting part, n. 22, 23. let the Reader judge? When I have but once more preſented his former words, (which he labours to mollifie or palliate) Thus he ſaid, Sect. 22. of Feſt. [For the eating and ſporting part, that need not be aboliſhed, ſave onelyonly in caſe of great and general abuſes. 2. Till the abuſes are not onelyonly ſo great, as diſcernible to out ballance the good uſes, but alſo ſo general, that the whole Church, in a manner, runs madding into theſe very great abuſes.] But ſaid I, this is pretty untempered morter, and the ſowing pillows under profane mens elbows: For, 1. For the eating part, (I meant the Riotous part) he knows the Apoſtle did aboliſh the Love Feaſts themſelves, not ſtay to reform the great and general abuſes of them. 2. For the ſporting part, ſuch as was much unbeſeeming the Feſtivity of ſuch a Saviour, the Doctor will not yeild, that that ſhall be aboliſhed, ſave p. 408in caſe onelyonly of great and general abuſes; Nay, 3. not for great and general abuſes, [Till they be ſo great, as to out-ballance the good uſes, and ſo general, that the whole Church runs madding into them.] 4. Thoſe abuſes, I ſaid have been long ſo great, that they have out-ballanced the good uſes, and ſo general, that the whole nation hath run mad into them, and yet the eating and ſporting part, the riot, & revellings was never attempted to be reformed; for thoſe too common unreformable abuſes, the like whereof were found in, and cauſed the abolition of thoſe Love-feaſts, as he ſaid, p. 270. n. 18.

Yet ſee again his good will and and reſpect to the Lords-day; thus he ſays, [I as heartily wiſh a devout, p. 272. n. 24conſcientious, profitable obſervation of the Lords-day, as of any other Feſtivity, &c.] How greatly is God and his Day beholden to his liberality. He ſays not, I could wiſh the Feſtival days, were as devoutly, &c. obſerved as the Lordsday; that had prefer'd it a little, as the ſtandard of obſervation of Holy-days. But his way depreſſes it, below his Festivals, and makes them (as he did Eaſter, above p. 243.) the ſtandard of devotion to the Lords-day. And it's very like his practice in obſervation of the Days was anſwerable; for he told us of Chriſtmas day, [That it was obſerved with much more, at leaſt as ſtrictly as any Lords-day in the year.] Equal ſtrictneſs was too much, but more, is more unequal and unjuſt. This he would evade, by interpreting the words by thoſe which follow, [In frequenting the ſervices of the Church, in uſe of the Liturgy, Sermon, Sacraments, &c. without prejudice to the Lordsday, on which the Lords Supper, was not conſtantly celebrated.] But this confeſſes the fact; that beſides all that pompous ſhew in Cathedrals, of Veſtments, p. 409and Muſick, &c. the **The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, I make an ingredient in the ſtrictneſs of the Celebration of of the Feſtivity. numb. 27. pag. 172.Lords Supper (which he knows was anciently celebrated, every Lordsday, and ſomewhere oftner) ſhould be enjoyned ſtrictly to be celebrated on Chriſtmas day, and was by ſome ſo obſerved, and not on the Lords-day. This imported ſome greater Holineſs, and Honour to that day, above the Lords-day, and we then might have wiſhed (as heartily as the Doctor does now) that the Lords day, might have been kept as devoutly, &c. as the Feſtival day, and fit it was, it ſhould have had ſome preheminence, as being of Divine Inſtitution, which his Feſtival had not.

The Apoſtolical Institution of the Lords-day, was, I thought, granted by the Doctor, Feſt. Sect. 31. and Apoſtolical Inſtitutions to be Divine, was alſo aſſerted, Quer. 1. ſ. 22. p. 273. n. 30.Yet how willingly would he, and how ſubtlely does he retract, what he had granted, to make either the Lords-day equally Eccleſiaſtical with his Festival, or his Feſtival, equally Apoſtolical, with the Lords-day. For I having charged him to aſſert, Sect. 57. [The Lords-day to be by the ſame authority appointed,] viz. of the Church: See how he ſhuffles to avoid it, firſt, [I did grant it, though I know not in what words of Scripture, that Inſtitution (of the Lords day) is ſet down.] Was he not then too raſh to acknowledge what he could not by Scripture, ſome way make out. He pleads Infant Baptiſm to be the inſtitution of Chriſt, & of Apoſtolical Practice, though he cannot tell where to find either of them in Scripture: He might have gratified the Lords-day with the ſame allowance, eſpecially having the mention of the Lords-day there, and obſervation of it by the Apoſtles, p. 410(which preſuppoſes an Inſtitution) which the other wants. 2. He takes off the objection from ſ. 57. thus, p. 273. n. 30.Thoſe words there uſed, [Though the Lords-day be by the ſame authority appointed,] do not belong to the ſtating of the queſtion, and no affirmation that the Lords-day is not inſtituted by any higher authority then Chriſtmas-day, &c.] Let the Reader turn to the place and judge; He had ſaid, [The ſame Church, or any other authority equal to that, obliges, &c.] Then follows, [And though the Lords day, be by the ſame Authority appointed,] that muſt needs be, the Church, which obliges, &c. 3. But he goes on, and ſays, [He is confeſſed in my Margent, to have ſaid, the Apoſtles inſtituted the Lords day, and he ſpeaks as plainly, Sect. 57. of Chriſtmas day, that it hath it's Inſtitution and uſage from the univerſal Church.] But I ask, (if he equivocate not with us) does not this, put a plain difference between the Inſtitution of the Lords-day, and Chriſtmas-day, the one Apoſtolical, the other Eccleſiaſtical? or elſe he muſt make them both of the ſame Authority, and was not that his deſigne, without any calumny? Here yet more. 4. [Either this is a calumny in the Diatribiſt, or elſe that the word Church, muſt be taken ſo, as to comprehend that part of it, of which the Apoſtles were rulers in perſon, and then what harm hath been in that ſpeech thus interpreted; the Church of the Apoſtles, Instituted the Lords-day, and either they perſonally or their ſucceſſours uſed and delivered down the other Feſtivals, of Eaſter, &c.] But this is a miſerable prevarication: For, 1. What means he by the Church of the **See p. 39. n. 4. Univerſal Church, including the Apoſtles, chief paſtors thereof, or the ſucceeding Churches, with their Governors.Apoſtles, which inſtituted the Lords-day? p. 411either the Apoſtles themſelves, (as it's uſual with ſome, to call the Rulers, the Biſhops, onelyonly, the Church:) and then it is of Divine Inſtitution, and ſo differs ſufficiently from Inſtitutions of the ſucceeding Church, or Rulers: Or the Church without, or with the Apoſtles; but he cannot ſhew any ſuch power in the Church, to inſtitute Ceremonies as parts of Worſhip, without them, or with them; neither then could it be called an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, but Eccleſiaſtical rather, if the Apostles were not conſidered as Apoſtles, but as Governors of the Church, and ſo not of Divine Inſtitution. 2. Yet how doubtfully he ſpeakes of his Chriſtmas; [Either they perſonally or their Succeſſours uſed and delivered down the other Feſtivals.] If not they perſonally, but their ſucceſſours, then behold a different authority again; they perſonally inſtituted the Lords-day; but not his Chriſtmas; then they are not both by the ſame authority appointed. 3 Yet more warily; [They or their ſucceſſors uſed and delivered down the other Feſtivals.] He ſhould have ſaid, they (not uſed, that imports but their practice, but) appointed or inſtituted the Feſtivals and delivered them down, &c. Or elſe the difference would again appear; the one had Inſtitution, the other onelyonly uſage or practice: And he may remember how he hath all along declined Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and pleaded onelyonly their practice, for his Feſtivals, and now declines the Churches Inſtitution alſo, and talks onelyonly of their uſing and delivering them down to poſterity 4. He was ſpeaking of the ſame authority, for the Lords-day, and Chriſtmas day, but now concludes with Eaſter day, and other Feſtivities: The reaſon is, becauſe he hath ſomething in ſtory, for Eaſter, p. 412(not as an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, but Eccleſiaſtical uſage onelyonly) but not a word in the prime Antiquity, for his Chriſtmas, either Inſtitution, or obſervation; So this was a blinde for his Reader. Laſtly, what needed all this warineſs, and modeſty; when we ſhall hear him take confidence upon him ſhortly, to affirm; [Chriſtmas is certainly derived from the Apoſtles,] p. 276. n. 3. Of which, in it's place.

For the lawfulneſs of Cards and Dice, even in his holy Feſtival, p. 274. n. 32.(as at other times) we have here the Doctors opinion: I purpoſe not to follow him into a new controverſie; enough hath been ſaid by learned men, and perhaps enough againſt them, by ſome, both Ancient Fathers, (beſide Heathens) and modern Caſuiſts (whom the Doctor will not vouchſafe to read) to perſwade tender conſciences to forbear them: And as for thoſe that allow and plead for their lawfulneſs, they bring in ſo many cautions, that, if it be not impoſsible, it's very improbable that one of an hundred doth or can obſerve them. The Doctor himſelf hath ſome conſiderable. [1. Uſed moderately. 2. As diverſions. 3. No way abuſed by our inordinacy;] that is, Mr. Gatac. of Lots. c. 8. p. 236, &c.as others have it, a man muſt not ſpend, 1. Too much time. 2. Too much patience. 3. Too much eſtate, at them; and many others, too long to repeat, too hard for moſt Gameſters to remember; much more to obſerve and practiſe. Amongſt the reſt, unſeaſonable uſe is one offence; when they are uſed, in times, that require more then ordinary Holineſs; as Feſtivals, this of Chriſtmas, eſpecially, were accounted. Now if that Authour, and the Doctor would allow them lawful, yet at that time, they were ſurely very unſeaſonable intertainments of a Feſtivity for a Spiritual Saviour, and p. 413(as the Doctor grants,) n. 35. [Services fitter for the Revels of Bacchus, &c.] But let the Dr. and others but ſay (as they do) Cards and Dice are lawful, people will run away with the allowance, and leave them to come after with the cautions. And if theſe abuſes, in violation of the caution, be ordinary, and almoſt inſeparable, from thoſe ſports, and unreformable (as he ſaid of the like, in the Love-feaſts) not one of many thouſands obſerving, nor caring to obſerve them; it will not become the Doctors great Piety, to open that door to profaneneſs, which he will never be able to ſhut again. But he knows, theſe were but part of the Feſtivals intertainments, in many great houſes: there were promiſcuous dancings, and Lords of miſrule, and beſides, ſurfetting and drunkenneſs, chambering, and wantonneſs, the common attendants, and conſequents of ſuch liberty; which as they were not endeavoured to be reformed; ſo are in the vulgar, unreformable, unleſs by abolition of the occaſions. As, I believe, the Doctor will finde when ever he goes about it. To regeſt the ſame abuſe, n. 34, 35.on the Lords day, or the like, hath been ſhewn to be very impertinent and injurious to the diſpute between us. And ſo much for that.

How undeniable, or rather how uncertain and inſufficient his evidences were, p. 275. n. 3.that the Feaſt of Eaſter was obſerved by the Apoſtles, as a Chriſtian Feaſt, or Holy-day, hath been made appear above, and the caſe to be the ſame, between Eaſter and Chriſtmas, hath alſo been conſidered, and thus far yeilded, or proved, that neither of them were of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, or obſervation; and it was ſufficient for me to uſe no other arguments againſt his Chriſtmas, than againſt his Eaſter; thoſe that were uſed againſt one, being rather more p. 414ſtrong againſt the other: The arguments were three, the laſt whereof, from the different obſervation of it the Doctor waves, and upon his former Suppoſition, that Eaſter was (not Inſtituted, but) obſerved by the Apoſtles; he tells us, [His affirmation mu… aſcend higher then it ever meant to have done, and not proceed disjunctively, that this Feaſt is derived from the Apoſtles, or the ſucceeding Church but leaving out the latter part of the partition, fix upon the former, that, being yeilded to have the ſame Original with Eaſter, it is certainly derived from the Apoſtles, as Eaſter was.] This is no more then I expected, that the Doctor would foreign, 2 Tim. 3.13.2 Tim 3:13aſcend higher in his after affirmations, th…n ever he meant to have done; Errour is like a ſwift running river, which upon oppoſition, riſes higher, and growes more violent. But I expected he would riſe one degree yet higher, that is, from an Apoſtolical uſage, or obſervation, to an Inſtitution: It may be, he means ſo much, by the word, (derived) from the Apoſtles. Eaſter it ſelf was not pleaded as an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, bu… Obſervation, which how unſatisfying it is, was ſhewed above: And mark the proof here; the evidences now brought, are not for Eaſter, but for other Feſtivities of Ignatius and Polycarp; n. 4, 5.who died after the Apoſtles, and (to ſee the luck of it, if I may uſe his words) are raſed out of our Church Calendar. Yet from theſe, n. 6. p. 276.the D…ctor aſſumes, or [reſumes his former affirmation without all diffidence, that other Feſtivals, beſides that of the weekly Lords day, were derived to us, ſome certainly from the Apoſtles, others from the Church immediately ſucceeding the Apoſtles:] If I ſhould have made ſo looſe an p. 415Inference, upon ſuch premiſes, my Logick had heard of it, on both ears: The Affirmation was, that certainly Christmas was derived from the Apoſtles, becauſe Easter was ſo; Eaſter was ſo, becauſe the Feſtivities of Ignatius and Polycarp, were ſet up ſoon after the Apoſtles. And the concluſion is, other Feſtivals were derived ſome certainly from the Apoſtles, others from the ſucceeding Church: Some certainly from the Apoſtles? pray, which were they? leave out, but the Lords-day, which was not derived onelyonly (if that ſignifie onelyonly uſage) but inſtituted by the Apoſtles, and ſay, without begging, which were they? Eaſter and Chriſmas; which is the queſtion: But how came in the Lords-weekly-day, here, of which no queſtion, but it was of Apoſtolical Inſtitution? either to give it a ſlubber, that it was but an Apoſtolical uſage, to level it with his Feſtival, or to baffle his Reader, that he might not ſtumble at his too confident affirmation, that Chriſtmas was certainly derived from the Apoſtles; becauſe the Lords-day was ſo. And yet after all this confidence, ſee his diffidence, where to place the Original of his Chriſmas: for thus he goes on; [In one of which ranks, (Apoſtles or ſucceeding Church) though I have no reaſon to doubt, but this of the Nativity is to be placed: Yet becauſe we have not thoſe evidences of the Fact, which we have of Eaſter and others, I ſhall not build upon any degree of uncertainty, nor affirm more then what the Tratiſe hath ſhewed out of the Ancient Fathers, that this Feaſt is deduced to us, early from the firſt antiquity,] Parturiunt montes, &c. Sure the firſt Antiquity, was from the Apoſtles dayes; but he dare not lay p. 416it upon them certainly, Though Conſtant. in the fourth Cent. did make orders for the obſervation of the Lords day, and other days, yet not a word of Chriſtmas which is very ſtrange, if then in uſage.becauſe of uncertainties, and yet affirmed confidently it was derived from them: Socrates tells us, the Apoſtles did not ſettle any Laws for Feſtivals; then not for this of the Nativity; how then was it derived from the Apoſtles? And if derived from the Apoſtles authority, how is it not an Apoſtolical Inſtitution? The Doctor ſhifts off this, by their obſervation, which of his Chriſtmas can never be proved. Thus he ſhakes off alſo, his friend the Lord Falkland, who, in all probability, hath diſcovered the Original of this and other Feſtivals. He is alſo ſilent to what I ſaid of his reaſonable Inducement, for the Inſtitution of this Feſtival; concluding with his old miſtake, (if I may not call it a calumny,) [That all uncommanded performances are here again blaſted, by the expreſs words of the ſecond Commandment, and Col. 2.23.] Which was ſpoken onelyonly of uncommanded Worſhip; But ſure (to uſe his own words) we have formerly ſpoken enough (and too much) of this arguing.

Concerning the Feaſt of Dedication; I ſhall not need to be long: p. 277. n. 1.Firſt, I ſaid, there were reaſons to think, it was not a Religious Feſtival, but civil, as that of Purim ſeems to be: Eſt. 9.21, 22. For, firſt, it's certain of this laſt, that it was not obſerved with Acts and Services of Religion, Sacrifices, &c. becauſe thoſe muſt be obſerved onelyonly at Jeruſalem, upon the Altar there, (which was demoliſhed at that time) but this of purim, was obſerved at Shuſan: where, had they an Altar, they might not offer ſacrifice, See ſupra p. 46. n. 14. & p. 281. n. 20.or keep a Religious Feaſt, by the Doctors own confeſſion. 2. It's ſaid, they kept it (as they ordered it) [A day of Feaſting and joy, and ſending portions, and gifts p. 417to the poor.] Without any mention of Religious ſervices: The like is ſaid of the Feaſt of Dedication, [They ordered, it ſhould be kept yearly, with mirth and gladneſs,] but no command or order for Sacrifices, in after times; the Doctor is very confident that it was a Religious Feaſt, and would prove it from the text. 1. Maccab. 4.56. [They roſe up early and offered Sacrifices according to the Law, &c. And the people fell down upon their faces, worſhipping and praiſing God, &c.] But firſt, the Doctor joyns things together, which are diſtant in the text; for he ſays, n. 8. [Ordaining that it ſhould be ſo kept for the future, from year to year.] So kept, is not in the text, as if they ordain'd it ſhould be kept with Sacrifices as at firſt it was; but only, kept with mirth and gladneſs.] 2. Sacrifices at a Feast made not the Feaſt Religious; there were Sacrifices offered every day at Jeruſalem, when they kept a civil Feaſt: As amongſt us, the birth days or coronation days of our Kings, were but civil Feaſts, to be kept with mirth and joy; ſuppoſe there were any prayers or preaching on thoſe dayes, theſe would not make thoſe Feaſts Religious. The fifth of Novemb. was commanded to be kept as a day of joy and rejoycing, and prayers and preaching onelyonly in the morning; but yet, I think, the Doctor will not call it a Religious Feaſt. At our private Feaſts, the Lord Majors day, or days of the Companies Feaſts, they meet at Church, and have prayers and preachings, yet thoſe Feaſts are not called Religious Feaſts, but Civil. 3. Thoſe Sacrifices offered, are ſaid to be according to the Law, that may be underſtood, either with reſpect to the Altar, (now reedified) where they were by Law commanded onelyonly to offer; or with reſpect to the kinde of offerings which were all ordered by p. 418Law, [May not (ſays he) burnt-offerings according to the Law, approved and commanded, be uſed in a Religious Feaſt?] No doubt, they may and muſt, if ſo commanded: But the queſtion is, whether offerings of that kinde, might not be uſed alſo in a civil Feaſt, among the Jews? and the Doctor muſt not beg it. And if thoſe Sacrifices were commanded by the Law, they were no Free-will offerings, which onelyonly pretend to Worſhip, which mirth and gladneſs, the other ingredients of that Feaſt, could not do.

In all this, hitherto ſaid, there was no great conviction, p. 279. n. 10to prevail with me, [That this was a Religious Feaſt inſtituted by the Church.] I ſhall try once more to convince the Doctor, that either it was not a Religious Feaſt, or not approved by God. Thus I argue: [To make a new kinde of Worſhip, not commanded by God, is unlawful, and not approved by God: But to make a Religious Feaſt, not commanded by God, is to make a new kinde of Worſhip; ergo,] The Major is the Doctors own conceſſion, above. The Minor is proved, becauſe a Religious Feaſt, was and is, a part of Worſhip, as is evident in all the Feaſts of Gods Inſtitution; then it follows, that either they did not make the Feaſt of Dedication a Religious Feaſt, or if they did, they tranſgreſſed the Rule, and could not be approved by God. That the Doctor makes it a Religious Feaſt, is evident, by his earneſt pleading for it, under that notion, and diſclaiming it as civil. If he ſhall ſay (as it's all is left to ſay) they made it not a part of Worſhip, but a Circumſtance of worſhip; he firſt makes it not a Religious Feaſt for which he hath ſo much pleaded, and then hath loſt his inſtance, of this Feaſt, to his purpoſe; for then it was no more an Holy-day, then any other day of the p. 419year. And now he may conſider [how well he hath demonſtrated the vanity of all my three Diatribees, of Superstition, Will-worſhip, Feſtivals,] and the reſt: For he makes his Feſtival a Will-worſhip, that is, a Worſhip uncommanded, and ſo a Religious Feaſt, and a part of Worſhip: and ſo will be found guilty of Superſtition and Will-worſhip, in obſervation of his Feſtival, which is ſupra ſtatutum, an Addition to the word, againſt the ſecond and fourth Commandments, and Col. 2.23. n. 11.And thus I ſhall aſſert; [If his Chriſtmas Feaſt, be anſwerable perfectly to this of the Dedication, and hold analogy with that,] as he ſays, then they are either both Religious Feaſts, and parts of Worſhip of humane inſtitution, and both unlawful; or if they be both but circumſtances of Worſhip, they are nothing to the purpoſe, which is of uncommanded Worſhip, not of uncommanded Circumſtances of Worſhip. And that they went beyond their commiſſion, in making it an annual Religious Feaſt, I hinted, by ſaying, that neither Solomon nor Zerubbabel, did make theirs ſo, for ought we read. n. 14.[Here (ſayes he) are the Symptomes again of a deſperate cauſe; that fain would catch at ſome ſupports but is forſaken of all] His evidences are all too ſhort; 1. That Judas, &c. ordain'd it ſhould be kept thus from year to year, is partly true, but not evident, they kept it thus, that is as a Religious Feaſt; but in mirth and gladneſs; or if they did, the queſtion is, (which the Doctor muſt not beg) whether they did well or no, the Negative whereof is proved above: 2. It's not evident it was ſo obſerved (as a Religious Feaſt) by the Jews in Chriſts time; it might be, as a civil Feaſt. 3. Nor is it evident, that though Chriſt was preſent in the Temple, at the Feaſt time, he approved and confirm'd p. 420it. If it was onelyonly a civil Feast, it is nothing to the purpoſe, though he approved it, as he did the wedding Feaſt, John 2. If it was a Religious Feaſt, and ſo made a part of Worſhip, Chriſt would not approve it, becauſe they that did ſo inſtitute, or ſo obſerve it, went beyond their commiſsion. As for thoſe learned men, that interpreted it of Solomons or Zerubbabels Dedication, p. 280. n. 15as they certainly erred in ſo doing, (as I proved) ſo they miſtook in making of them annual; for the reaſon by me given; they might make an extraordinary day of thankſgiving, for ſome ſpecial mercy, (as a day of Humiliation for ſome judgement felt, or feared) for then God calls to thoſe duties: but to make either of them Annual and perpetual, I deſire to ſee their commiſſion: And this may anſwer the Doctors demand; n. 16.[Suppoſing thoſe two were never obſerved but once, why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often or annually? If the firſt offended not, by being ſuper ſtatutum, how could the ſecond or hundreth—repetition render it criminous?] I ſhall but demand of him; ſuppoſing Jehoſhaphat, in an exigent, called and made a ſolemn day of Humiliation; why might he not have made it annual, to poſterity, if the firſt offended not, how the annual repetition of it? Anſwer one, and anſwer both. The reſolution is given above: A Magiſtrate may, upon a ſpecial occaſion appoint a Feaſt or Faſt; but to make thoſe dayes perpetually Religious Feaſts or Faſts, he hath no commiſſion: And if he make a civil Feaſt perpetuall, it's nothing to our debate. Let not the Doctor ſnarle at this anſwer; I ſhall boldly ſay, n. 17.if King Lucius never ſo long ago, or any other King had kept Chriſtmas day, or Good-friday, as Religious and parts of Worſhip (as Papiſts do now, and the Doctor with them) I ſhould p. 421have written Triplicem Diatriben againſt them, as now I do againſt the Doctor. But if he had made them no more then Circumſtances of Worſhip, I ſhould never have uſed my pen againſt him.

That Christ was preſent at the Feaſt, as a Feaſt, n. 18.is alſo begged, but nor is, nor can be proved; the text ſays not, he was at the Feaſt, Vide Junium. contr. 3. l. 4 a. 17. an. 6. Pelican. in 1 Mac. 4.1 Macc 4but Jeſus walked in the Temple. Now take the Doctors inferences, or Interrogations: [Was not that an evidence of Chriſts approbation?] Jeſus walked in the Temple; ergo, he approved the Feſtival; take another like it, Paul haſted to be at Jeruſalem at Pentecoſt; ergo, he approved and confirmed that Festival after Chriſt had aboliſhed it: and then adde, would Paul have been preſent at an unlawful, ſuperſtitious, deteſtable feaſt, &c. and never have reprehended it? ſo the Doctor argues, [Chriſt was at the Feaſt; ergo, if unlawful, he would have reprehended it. But he doth not reprehend it; ergo, he approved it.] But, firſt, let him not beg Chriſt was at it, as a Religious Feaſt. 2. Let him remember his own Rule, [There is ſmall virtue in an argument from Scripture Negativè.] p. 244. n. 12. 3. Nor was it any more ſcandalous for Chriſt to be in the Temple, at the time of the Feaſt, then for Paul and other Apoſtles, to be there at Pentecoſt and other times, when Temple and Feſtivals were voided by Chriſts death. If I had made ſuch looſe inferences, how would the Doctor have inſulted? He cannot but know, that my anſwer, is made by very learned men, over whom the Doctor would not thus triumph. n. 20. p 28.I could now return him his own words a little inverted. What if Jeſus walked in the Temple on the Feaſt day, doth it therefore p. 422follow, that he approved? &c. This is a new kinde of arguing ſtill, &c.

[Marriage, n. 21.(he ſays) might be approved, to be Religious:] If he would engage in a new controverſie: This indeed, if proved, would help to countenance his Virginity or Caelibate, to be Religious, and a part of Worſhip, as Papiſts make it: But why Religious? becauſe, there are Prayers, and Sacrament, &c. at the Celebration of it. But this might turn all Civil Feaſts into Religious, when thoſe or ſome of thoſe ſervices are premiſed to them. Yea, our ordinary meals, when Prayers for a bleſſing before, and Praiſes after, are uſed, would be then turn'd into Religious Feaſts. But he ſays, [The onelyonly difference between a Civil and a Religious Feaſt is, that in the one, the publick ſervices of the Church (ſome or all of them) are uſed, adding Feſtival diet alſo, whereas the other is made up onelyonly of the latter.] But enough of this afore, ad p. 277. n. 1. His queſtion then, is eaſily anſwered: n. 22.[Can the ſervices of the Church being added, make that criminous which was innocent before? make that which was but civil before, ſacrilegious and impious?] That was not the queſtion, but whether the ſervices of the Church make a civil Feaſt Religious? And whether, (beſide Superſtition and Will-worſhip) Riot and revellings do not pollute his moſt ſacred Feſtival? This rarity the Doctor was acquainted with before; but he would forget it, to give me a ſlur in the eyes of his Reader.

For the Feaſt of Purim, Heſt. 9. There are many anſwers given by learned men; 1. That it was a civil Feaſt; which appears probable by the text; they made it a day of Feaſting and Joy, &c. p. 423without any mention of Religious ſervices; as I ſaid above, ſee ad p. 277. n. 1. But the Doctor inſtead of demonſtrating will needs ſuppoſe; p. 282. n. 24.[That a day of reſt, of aſſembly, of feaſting and gladneſs, ſending of portions (ſuch as in a ſacrifical Feaſt) will to any unpartial Reader, paſs for an indication of a Religious Feaſt.] Truly he muſt be very partial, whom this will convince: All theſe may be found, in a civil Feaſt. A day of reſt, from ordinary labours: An aſſembly at the Common Halls, or places of meeting, or places of the vulgars recreations: A day of Feasting and gladneſs, &c. OnelyOnly one thing the Doctor would inſinuate, which certainly was not at Shuphan, [portions, foreign, ſuch as in a Sacrifical Feast.) Which Sacrifices might be onelyonly at Jeruſalem: This he did, to make it ſeem a Religious Feaſt; which had it been done, would not make the Feaſt Religious, as was ſaid above. 2. If it was a Religious Feaſt, others anſwer, Mordecai was a Prophet, and ſo directed by God to make it ſo, which the Doctors Feſtival wants. If that Feaſt of Purim, had not ſuch Divine Authority, and yet made a Religious Feaſt, (as the Doctor will needs have it) I dare ſtill ſay, they went beyond their commiſſion, and the Doctor ſhall juſtifie my aſſertion; who condemnes all new ſorts of Worſhip as unlawful.

Concerning the Inſtitution of the Lords-day, to be Divine whether by Chriſt himſelf, or the Apoſtles, enough hath been ſaid, in another place, and I ſhall not renew that debate at this time. And how odious the frequent compariſons (if not preferment) of his Feſtivals, with the Lords-day were, hath been manifeſted above. The Doctor cannot yet forbear, but he muſt either level the Lords-day p. 424to his Festival, or advance his Feſtivals into the ſame Chair of Eſtate with the Lords-day: for thus he ſays, p. 284. n. 5. He teaches his Catechumene thus from Acts 20.7. That the Lords day, was the time ſo early ſet apart to the Lords Supper, and ſuch holy duties: and for collections, Pract. cat. 2. ed. p. 273.Acts 20:7[The parallel that I ſet betwixt the Lords-day and Christmas, was onelyonly this, that as neither of them was found preſcribed, or by law commanded in Scripture; ſo the want of ſuch law, ſhould be no prejudice to the one, more then to the other, as long as by ſome other way it appeared of the one that it was derived from the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding Church, as of the other that it came immediately from the Apoſtles:] Now 1. Theſe laſt words ſpoil his parallel, that the Lords-day came immediately from the Apoſtles, and that as an Institution Divine; whereas his Festival came not at all from any Inſtitution of the Apoſtles, but from the uſage of the ſucceeding Church. 2. That the Lords-day had a law to found it on, the fourth Commandment for one day of ſeven of Divine appointment, (as was ſhewed above) and needed onelyonly a Divine deſignation, which was done by Chriſt or his Apostles: but his Feſtival had no law to found it on, but rather a prohibition, if made a part of Worſhip. But yet the Doctor goes on; [If the Apostles uſage gave to one a Divine Authority the uſage of the ſucceeding Church muſt be next to that, though not Divine; and the latter lawfull, yea, and obligatory as well, though not in ſo high a degree, as the former.] Here are miſadventures enough, for ſo few lines. 1. He now ſecretly waves the Apoſtles Inſtitution of the Lords-day, and brings it to their uſage, that ſo, it might be equal to his Feſtival; an uſage onelyonly. 2. Then he would have it ſuppoſed (for he is excellent at ſuppoſitions, that will not be granted him) that the uſage of the Apoſtles, will make any thing Divine; which is moſt unreaſonable, unleſs he will again recal and p. 425eſtabliſh as Divine, the old Sabbath, and other Jewiſh Ceremonies. 3. He hath much ado to forbear to ſay, [The uſage of the ſucceeding Church, muſt be (Divine alſo) next to that, and lawful and obligatory (almoſt as much as that of the Apoſtles) as well, though not in ſo high a degree.] 4. If the Authority for inſtituting of the Lords-day, and his Feſtivals be the ſame, (as he hath aſſerted often) and both derived from the Apoſtles: then either the uſages and Feſtivals of the ſucceeding Church, are Divine; or thoſe of the Apoſtles are but humane and Eccleſiaſtical: And then, the uſages of the ſucceeding Church, are not onelyonly lawful and obligatory, as well as thoſe of the Apoſtles, but as much, and in as high a degree alſo; the Authority being the ſame. But the Doctor is engaged, and cannot fairly go back, that the Lords-day is of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and their Inſtitution alſo Divine, and does not that carry in it, Divine preſcrition or Law? He will help himſelf by a diſtinction, n. 6.284.[If by inſtitution be meant giving law for the obſervation of it, then there is no doubt, of his propoſition: n. 7.But 'tis poſſible that Inſtitution of the day by the Apoſtles, may ſignifie, that the Apoſtles practice in aſſembling weekly on the Lords day, ſhould have the force of an Inſtitution or Law, with the ſucceeding Church, though the Apoſtles gave no law for it, or no ſuch law appears from them.] Never, I think was it heard, that an Apoſtolical uſage, was called by the name of an Apoſtolical Inſtitution. Or that the Apoſtles practice, was ground ſufficient to make an Inſtitution or Law to the ſucceeding Church: Yes, (ſayes he,) n. 8.[The Apoſiles examples are the onelyonly way of conveying ſome uſages to us, without any their preſcript Law; and in this ſenſe, I conſent to the Diatribiſt, that their p. 426Inſtitutions carry in them Divine preſcription, or a Law.] But I ſhall not thank him for this conſent, and ſhall enter my diſcent againſt this laſt propoſition, [That the Apoſtles examples, &c.] He ſhould have inſtanced in ſome ſuch uſages onelyonly, that carry in them a Divine Law, and have no other grounds of Scripture, to import a Divine Inſtitution. And if ſuch uſages carry in them a Divine Law, why hath he not ſpoken out, and told us, that his Feſtivals, being derived from the Apoſtles, or the ſucceeding Church, are Divine Inſtitutions, and not onelyonly Apoſtolical uſages. Yet he growes confident, to demand this as granted, n. 9.[That whatſoever elſe ſhall be in the ſame manner derived to us, through all ages of the Church, from the times of the Apoſtles themſelves, may be acknowledged alſo to carry a Divine impreſſion upon it.] He means, as well as the Lords-day: This, this is the Helena, the Doctor ſo contends for; to ſtabliſh by Tradition, that which cannot be proved from Scripture. But I would ſay, 1. There are not many things ſo derived to us from the Apoſtles, through all ages, except the Lords-day and Infant Baptiſme, (though this latter hath not in Scripture, Apoſtolical practice, as the former hath. But had not both of them ſufficient grounds in Scripture to infer a Divine Inſtitution, Infants communicating in the Lords Supper continued ſix hundred years in the Church: ſayes, Dr. Morton, Appeal. l. 2. c. 13. ſ. 3.I for my part, ſhould not be much perſwaded by a meer Apoſtolical uſage, through many ages, from the Apoſtles themſelves. For its known the Apoſtles did frequent the Aſſemblies on the old Sabbath, and it was obſerved (as I remember) together with the Lords-day, for the four firſt Centuries; yet caſt off at laſt, as not Divine. And p. 427therefore, I muſt profeſs my diſlike of the Doctors proceedings in his plea for Infant Baptiſme, meerly or chiefly from Tradition, of Apoſtolical practice, and in a manner waving **As imperfect wayes of proving it, Inf. Bapt. p. 2. n. 1, 2. and profeſſing to lay the moſt weight upon Apoſtolical practice. p. 95: n. 39. that is, Tradition of the Church. n. 9.the Scriptures, whereon all our Divines do found it. But this was done, to bring in his beloved Eaſter, and Epiſcopacy ſo much doated on: For the firſt, how well he hath demonſtrated it to be derived from the Apoſtles, as a Chriſtian Feſtival, let the Reader judge by what hath been ſaid above. For the other of Epiſcopacy, it leads into a new controverſie, wherein other Learned men are engaged, to them I leave it. But I cannot paſs by, another odious compariſon, betwixt it, and the Lords-day, (Et ſi non aliqua nocuiſſet, &c.) He appeals my knowledge, [Epiſcopacy hath perfectly as much to be ſaid for it, in every reſpect, as the Lords-day.] I do here profeſs his miſtake of my knowledge; for I know no ſuch matter, and I durſt venture my skill, to prove, [It hath (if any thing at all) not ſo much, (much leſs perfectly, and in every reſpect) to be ſaid for it, in the Scriptures, as the Lords-day.] But I ſhall not enter into a new debate.

But he ſpeaks of a demonſtration of Eaſter to be derived from the Apoſtles, & well then he may inſult over the Lords day, if he can finde a Law in Scripture for it, and none for the Lords day, n. 7. And that is found by him, in 1 Cor. 5.8. Let us keep the Paſchal Feſtivity: ſo he rendered is, Feſt. ſ. 31:[foreign, Let us keep the Feaſt,] here's an expreſs Law, if it be meant of Eaſter-day, as the Doctor would have us believe: But againſt this, I brought ſome Interpretations and Authorities, from Ancient and Modern Writers; taking it, in another ſenſe: and I might have brought more, but that I would not fill my pages, and trouble my Reader, when the context clears it from the Doctors p. 428gloſs: If the Doctor did not believe it, why did he cite it? If he did believe it, why doth he ſo poorly relinguiſh it? For firſt, he ſlights all thoſe Authorities, onelyonly telling us, [It were no impoſſible thing to anſwer thoſe teſtimonies:] p. 285. n. 11 Det. of Inf. Bapt. againſt M. Tombs p. 17. n. 26. Yet elſewhere ſays The word is by circumſtances applied to the Feaſt of Eaſter, (p. 244. n. 12.) as ſome ground in Scripture for the obſervation. Eſtius (with Beza) better hits the ſenſe, Sicu… Judaei fermento abſtinebant quamdiu Paſcha celibrabant, it a & vos Chriſtiana & perpetuum Paſcha agentes, ſemper oporter abſtinere, à fermento veteris ac p…avae converſationis. Itaque Epulemur, &c. In locum.But I could bring him one Teſtimony, that he may not well ſlight; who thus gloſſes that text, [Paul himſelf ſaying, that Chriſt our Paſsover is ſacrificed for us, the plain meaning of it being this, that the Jewiſh Paſsover being aboliſhed, we have now the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, ſubſtituted in the ſtead of it.] Not, the Jewiſh Paſchal Feaſt being aboliſhed, Eaſter Feaſt is ſubſtituted inſtead of it; let us therefore keep the Feaſt, of the Lords Supper: which was the very gloſs of Aquinas, by me produced. Secondly, as he ſlights them, ſo he ſhakes off me, with a lofty ſcorn; [I ſhall never diſcourage him in that very reaſonable courſe of appeal, to the judgement of the Fathers, and other ſuch learned men.] As if no body (of his Adverſaries, at leaſt not my poor ſelf) did converſe with the Fathers and other Learned men, but himſelf; who yet takes upon him, Magiſterially and Dictator like, to vent his own Interpretations of Scripture, quite againſt the Judgement of many Ancient, and moſt Modern learned Proteſtants: And whether it advantage me or no, ſure it will prejudice him not a little, to bring a text to prove a Law for Eaſter, which his own conſcience tells him, is not the ſenſe of it, by that means to advance it above the Lords-day; when he confeſſes, [all that he was p. 429to prove there, was no more but this, that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them.] As for me, whether I have brought from Scripture ſome other places, which are more Apodictical evidences of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, (which imports a Law) for the Lords day, it is left to the Indifferent Reader to judge.

As for Aerius his being condemned by Epiphanius, for holding Feſtivals unlawful, p. 286. n. 1.(as alſo he did, Epiſcopacy) if he meant onelyonly (as ſome think he did) that it was unlawful to make Feſtivals parts of Worwip, or Holy-days, equal with the Lords-day; as he was unjuſtly branded for an Heretick for this opinion, ſo he hath in this, (as alſo in the matter of Epiſcopacy as the Doctor knowes) many Orthodox learned Divines of his opinion who were never called Hereticks for ſo doing. I ſhall give him the thoughts and deſires of ſome of them; Firſt, Bucer, (whom the Doctor delights to cite ſometimes) in Matth. 12. Ferias alias (praetur diem Dominicum) optarim abrogatus univerſas, &c. [I could wiſh that every Holy-day, beſide the Lords-day, were aboliſhed. The zeal which brought them in, was without all warrant of the word, and meerly followed corrupt reaſon, viz. N. B.to drive out the Holy-days of the Pagans, &c. Thoſe Holy-days, have been ſo tainted with Superſtitions, that I wonder that any Chriſtian ſhould not tremble at their very names.] The next is Oecolampadius, in Iſa. 1.4. [I never heard wiſe man yet, who did not judge, that a great part at leaſt of other Feaſts, beſides the Lords day, ſhould be aboliſhed.] The laſt ſhall be the learned Zanchie, who though he ſpeaks favourably ſometimes, of ſome Feſtivals, yet thus delivers his judgement; [It is moſt agreeable to the firſt Inſtitution and Apoſtolical writings, that one p. 430day onelyonly in the week, be kept holy:] in 4. Precept. n. 3.Let the Doctor now go on, and call theſe learned men, Hereticks in paraphraſe, as he plainly does, it will be little for his credit.

I ſhall in the next place, take the Doctor at his word; p. 286. n. 4.He profeſſes, [If I ſhall bring any ſo fair evidences that they that obſerve Feaſts are ſuperſtitious, he will think himſelf obliged, to do more, then deny the accuſation.] That is, I ſuppoſe, he will acknowledge it, and retract his errour: Now I accept the condition, and ſhall appeal to the Doctors own conſcience, whether I have not brought fairer evidences of ſolid arguments and reaſons, and that from his own conceſſions, that he is ſuperſtitious in obſerving his Feſtivals, then he hath or can bring, to prove thoſe that neglect his Feſtivals to be Hereticks; or if the Doctor ſhould be partial to himſelf, I ſhall appeal to the impartial Reader, whether he be not by his word, and by ſtrong reaſon obliged, to do more, then deny the accuſation. The reſt in this Section, as they have been often ſpoken to, ſo they are impertinent to the main buſineſs, and I paſs them over.

And now having made it appear (which was my main deſign) that the Inſtitution of his Feſtival, was not Apoſtolical, and the obſervation of it, as of late, was attended with Superſtition, and made a Will-worſhip, I ſhall not need to draw the Sawe any longer, about the Antiquity of this and other Feſtivals. This may ſuffice for them all, [If they were Inſtituted at first, as Holy-dayes, parts of Worſhip, &c. they cannot be freed from the guilt of Superſtition, &c.] If onelyonly as circumſtances of time, to meet for the Worſhip of God, as it is nothing to our diſpute, and denies them to be any holier, then other days: So it was by me, from the p. 431beginning, to the end of this laſt Diatribe, granted lawful; (ſee Sect. 75.) due cautions being obſerved. Wherein the Doctors ingenuity ſuffers not a little, that he takes no notice of theſe my conceſſions, but carries it ſo, as if he would have his Reader believe, I abſolutely made ſuch times unlawfull.

As for thoſe Teſtimonies, of Origen, Cyprian, and Chryſoſtome, produced (he ſays) in his Pract. Cat. p. 288. n. 11p. 180. The firſt, Origen, ſpeaks indeed of Innocents day, in his time obſerved, but not a word of Chriſtmas day. The next of Cyprian, in the third Century, if he mean it, of his Sermon de Nativitate, its branded by many learned men as Spurious and none of his: So is that of Chryſoſt. alſo, as I could have pleaded, but that I ſaw no validity in his proofs of the Antiquity of the Feſtival, but much uncertainty, both that he tells us, it was not fixed at Antioch in his time, to ſuch a day, (which different obſervation argues it not to be Apoſtolicall) as alſo, that he palpably miſtakes the grounds of his Demonſtration; [That Zachary was high Prieſt, and that it was the Feaſt of Tabernacles,] which both were proved falſe. But the Doctor takes no notice of this my anſwer, but thinks to evade by ſaying, [That the queſtion at that time, p. 291. n. 11belonged not to the Feſtivity it ſelf, but onelyonly to the particularity of the day, the 25. of Decemb.] For its obſervable that he alſo ſpeaks of the Feaſt it ſelf. p. 512. l. 25. [That the Feaſt was ſo ſpeedily promulgate and aſcended to ſo great an height, and flouriſht,] and the words a little before, [That it was manifeſt and illuſtrous to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira] with the Doctors Comment on them, [from Eaſt to Weſt, which ſure with him ſignifies, all the world over,] cannot be meant of the p. 432particular day; for then there would have been no queſtion in Chryſoſt. time, about it; if the day had been ſo manifeſt and illuſtrous all the world over: Beſides Chryſoſt. foreign &c.himſelf (if it be he) tells us afore, that it was not yet ten years ſince this day was manifeſted; therefore, in the other words, he ſpake of the Feaſt it ſelf, not of the particular day. So likewiſe in thoſe words, alluding to Gamaliels ſpeech, [What he ſpake, foreign, (of the Goſpel ſure) I ſpeak the ſame of this day, if it be of God, &c. not onelyonly it ſhall not be diſſolved, but every year increaſe, and be more illuſtrous,] cannot be meant of the particular day, (which was different in divers places) but of the Feſtivity it ſelf. And the foreign, the Preaching, muſt not be meant [of it, n. 13.i. e. the day certainly] as the Doctor gloſſes it; for the words may better bear this ſenſe, foreign, &c. [Becauſe the Preaching alſo, i. e. of the Goſpel, (of which Gamaliel ſpake, not of the day,) in a few years took poſſeſſion of the whole world, &c.] Which if it were taken of the Feaſt, or day, would prove more then the Doctor intended, that the Apoſtles not onelyonly obſerved, but inſtituted the Feſtivity alſo: It was not fairly done, for the Doctor in Interpretation of the words, to leave out the particle (foreign) which there muſt ſignifie (alſo) as ſpoken of another thing. However, this very Teſtimony of the different time, of obſervation of it, to me, is ſufficient to prove it not of Apoſtolical obſervation, much leſs, Inſtitution. But enough of this.

The Doctors premiſes being thus invalidated, p. 292. n. 2.his concluſion muſt needs be weak and (as it is) unjuſt, charging thoſe that rejected or obſerved not his Feſtivals, (both as Hereticks as newly afore, as alſo) as Schiſmaticks; [As an act of affected p. 433departure from the Ʋniverſal Church in all ages, &c.] Which I ſuppoſe all ſober and indifferent men, will look upon, (when they have read and conſidered what hath been ſaid to his premiſes) as a moſt injurious caluminy: For it hath been made appear, 1. That it was no Apoſtolical Inſtitution. 2. Nor Obſervation. 3. Nor Univerſally obſerved in all ages, and places of the Church. 4. Nor, when it was obſerved, was it uniformly obſerved, in regard of the day: In Epiphanius time, it was obſerved on the ſame day, with that they call the Epiphany, **The fixth of January Caſſian. Collat. 10. c. 2.or Twelfth day: by the Brittains on Mid-Winter day, about the Winter Solſtice the 10. or 11 of Decemb. In Chryſoſt. time, the particular day was not fixt at Antioch, but very lately came to be known; and the Dr. himſelf twice hath told us, it was not univerſally obſerved all the world over, till about 400 years after Chriſt. But he complains of wrong, in my citation of the places, as miſreported. p. 294. n. 8.To which purpoſe he produces one of the places at large, to demonſtrate what fidelity I uſed in citing it. Let the Reader peruſe his very words, and he will acquit me from this charge, and I think, will conclude as much from him, as I ſay. Thus he ſaid, [Though the particular day was not fixed at Antioch till Chryſoſtomes time, yet from Rome over all the Weſt, it had been ſo obſerved from the moſt ancient records of Christianity: upon which my concluſion is, that it appears at leaſt, to be an Eccleſiaſtical constitution, very early received over all the West, the far greateſt part of Chriſtendome, and within 400 years univerſally ſolemnized, &c.] Take a ſhort Comment upon theſe words: [The particular day was not known at Antioch, till Chryſoſt. time,] in the fourth Century: Is it probable that in ſuch an univerſal obſervation of the Apoſtles and Primitive Church, they ſhould not have agreed on p. 434the day, [Yet over the Weſt, it had been ſo obſerved.] But the Weſt, is not over all the world, as he told us, in expoſition of Chryſoſt. words, ad p. 291. n. 11. [It appears at leaſt to be an Eccleſiaſtical conſtitution,] but that's ſhort of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, or Obſervation, which was confidently aſſerted above: [very early received over all the Weſt, the greateſt part of Chriſtendom.] But that's far from the primitive times, and ſhort of all the world of Chriſtendom, whereof there was a conſiderable part in the Eaſt: [And within 400 years univerſally ſolemnized.] What is this, but what I ſaid, in ſenſe, that it was not univerſally ſolemnized, till abbat 400 years after Chriſt; that is, about the fourth Century: His own words, [within 400 years,] imports that it was not univerſally ſolemnized in the firſt 300 years, and that's enough for me. And what needed the Doctor to be ſo critical, for a word, to make a man an offender? what cauſe was there of that out-cry, n. 10.[What can be more viſibly unjuſt? &c.] But ſeeing he is ſo riged; why did he not take notice, of thoſe other words of Nicephorus, The Emperours Edict, if it were reconcilable with the Apoſtles practice. p. 289. n. 3. yet never with an univerſal obſervatition of it before that time, numb. 11.[That Juſtinus the Emperour, firſt commanded it to be kept Feſtival over the world.] Firſt, over the world, that is univerſally, in the ſixth Century: which is ſufficient to clear what I ſaid, that it was not univerſally obſerved in all ages and places; what juſtice was there, in this omiſſion? I ſhall onelyonly ask or take the leave, foreign, in this, to make uſe of his words, more truly, [It ſeems the guilty perſon hath the priviledge (to cry out firſt, and) of accuſing and judging in any form of language;] which to whom it belongs, let the Reader now judge.

p. 435And one thing more, I ſhall deſire his umpirage in, whether the Doctor hath dealt fairly with me, in leaping over almoſt four leaves together, from p. 191. to the end of 197. where there were many things of near concernment to himſelf, and to the main debate between us. There I did, as it were, challenge him at his own weapon, his own rule of judging and reſolving of controverſies, in his firſt Quere; and by application of that rule, regulated by his own cautions, made it appeare, [That he cannot prove, that in rejecting, or not obſerving of his Feſtival, we have departed from the univerſal Church, in all ages.] Let the Reader be pleaſed to review thoſes pages of mine, and then give ſentence. OnelyOnly he makes ſome two or three ſtrictures, where he thought he had ſome colour of advantage. Firſt, I granted, p. 293. n. 6.[What had the concordant atteſtation of the Churches of the Apoſtolical time, while they were yet alive, was Apoſtolical; but there are not many things ſo atteſted.] And I added, [What ever doctrine, or practice, wants ſuch concordant univerſal, uniform Atteſtation, is not Apoſtolical; for they being all guided by one Spirit would all agree uniformly, in the ſame doctrine and practice.] Which he cavils at, but anſwers not. I added this Negative rule, partly as more clear and certain to us, at ſuch a diſtance, from the Apoſtles, when it's harder to finde, or judge what was Apoſtolical by ſuch atteſtation of the Churches, then what is not Apoſtolical, in the want of ſuch atteſtation: partly that I might turn his Canon upon himſelf, by ſhewing that his Feſtival, hath no ſuch concordant, univerſal, uniform atteſtation of the primitive Ancients, or Apoſtolical Churches. 2. I added for an inſtance, the concordant Atteſtation of the Churches, of the ſecond and third Centuries, for the Millemium, p. 436Chriſts reign on earth for a thouſand years, which found no conſiderable (if any) oppoſition, for 250 years, and produced the Lord Falklands words to atteſt it. n. 7.All he ſayes to it, is this, [I confeſs, this had not formerly been produced, but it falls out, that I have elſewhere ſufficiently cleared it;] and he cites, Qu. 1. ſ. 38. which I took notice of, and anſwered; but he neglects it, and tells us alſo of his defence of the Lord Falk. Tract of Infallibility, which I have not had the opportunity to ſee: But how he will take off the Lord Falk. way of arguing to the invalidating of Traditions, I profeſs not to divine.

And now, after a long and tedious journey, we are drawing near to our reſt: where we meet with a complaint, and a valediction. The complaint is [of my Faſtidious Reflections, upon three Queſtions returned to the Author of the 16 Queres.] But ſure the three queſtions were propoſed, not onelyonly to that Authour, but to any, [that ſhould thinke fit, to reſume this buſineſs into conſideration, and enquire any further into this Subject.] And ſo to me, who was unſatisfied with his whole Tract of Feſtivals, and with the manner of his propoſing of thoſe three queſtions. And why he ſhould call them Faſtidious Reflexions, I know not. The R. Doctor and men of his way, do not love, or do not uſe to ſtate their queſtions right, (as in this ſo in other controverſies) that ſo they may have the more liberty, to expatiate in ambiguities. This is evident, in all theſe three Diatribees, of Superſtition, Will-worſhip, and Feſtivals. My hardeſt task hath been to finde out the true ſtate of the controverſies about them; which I ſaw the Doctor had declined, and when it was done, did labour to obſcure it; why he did ſo, let him now conſider. It's apparent, that in all the three p. 437queſtions, he hath miſtated them. This I ſhewed him in each particular, and all his anſwer is, Faſtidious Reflexions. But I had more cauſe to complain, of faſtidious neglects, and omiſſions. In that, firſt, by not stating the queſtion aright, either firſt or laſt, he would inſinuate to his facile and credulous Reader, that I am of opinion, [that all Circumſtances of Worſhip, as time and place, &c. when eſtabliſhed by the Church, are unlawful.] Which I intended onelyonly of uncommanded Worſhip; as himſelf hath more then once, acknowledged for me. 2. That he ſo faſtidiouſly refuſes to anſwer my four queſtions, truly ſtating the controverſies betwixt us. Surely, it concern'd the Doctor to have anſwered yea or nay, to affirm or deny them, or to ſhew their miſtakes, in the miſtating of them. That he endeavours thus, [In his propoſing of 4. other queſtions, p. 295. n. 12he inſerts particulars, wholly rejected by me, as that of parts of Worſhip, adding, as it is propounded, ſ. 9. (but I hope not by me ſo propounded) of abuſe to Superſtition, and Profaneneſs, &c. I ſhall be little obliged to accept them, in his terms, to begin new diſputes, at this time.] But, firſt, that of parts of Worſhip, was neceſſarily to be inſerted, into the queſtion, both, becauſe in circumſtances of Worſhip, we differ not, or not ſo much; and alſo for that, what ever the Doctor rejects in words, he does indeed maintain Will worſhip, Ʋncommanded Worſhip, and (as hath been proved) makes his Feſtival a part of Worſhip. 2. That inſertion of Superſtition & profaneneſs, was alſo neceſſary, as being proved againſt ſome obſervers of his Feſtival, and alſo charged upon himſelf, in my third queſtion, in particular. And ſure the Reader cannot but ſuſpect the Doctor to be guilty of this charge (of Superſtition) that he ſilently paſſes it by, when ever (which was p. 438often) it was charged upon him: eſpecially now that it is proved ſo fully againſt him. As for his valediction, it is thus. [It is not amiſs, that we ſhake hands for a while, and commune each with his owne heart in ſtillneſs. And ſo I heartily take my leave of him.] This parting ſounds, as if the Doctor heartily deſired, we might never meet again, in theſe conteſts; which I ſhall eaſily condeſcend unto; if this now ſaid, ſatisfie not, I ſhall not expect it, by any thing more that can be ſaid. But I could and do heartily wiſh, we might unanimouſly agree, in the one truth, that lies betwixt us, and give one another the right hand of fellowſhip, never to be disjoyned more: Let the R. Doctor now commune with his own heart, in ſtilneſs, and conſider whether he hath fairly, and Chriſtian-like, carried on his debates, 1 Tim. 6.4. Aegrotans circa quaeſtiones Iraen. l. 3. c. 12. 3 John 2. Tit. 1.13.1 Tim 6:43 John 1:2Titus 1:13with one that dealt ſo fairly, and reſpectively with him. And I ſhall commune with mine own heart in ſtillneſs, how ſo much charity, (as is here pretended) and ſo much ſcorn and reproach, to make me vile to all his Readers, can meet and dwell together in one breaſt. And becauſe I now ſufficiently perceive, that he is, foreign, I ſhall heartily with him (as of old) foreign.

FINIS