Diatribe Triplex

The Preface.

WHat was said of old, "That in the accusation of Heresy, no man ought to be silent; may well be applied, to a charge of Superstition, and Will-worship, The one is a crime against the Truth of God, the other two against the worship of God; and the question is, which is the greater sin, "To corrupt the Doctrine, or the worship? That, Heresy is a great and a damnable sin, all men confess; That Superstition, and Will-worship, are as criminal, and abhominable to God, (though some men accompt them rather their virtues, than their crimes ) is as demonstrable; and hath been demonstrated else-where. The words (and things imported by them) have so long heard ill, in the Reformed Churches, that men must either deny themselves guilty of the things, or study to defend, and vindicate the words from the evil sense and savor put upon them. The Reverend Doctor (with whom I deal) takes it very heinously, "that the crimes of Superstition and will-worship, should be

besides the Riot attending on it. He will not (by his good will) grant, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Superstition and will-worship, in the Scriptures, are to be taken in an ill notion; much less to be accounted crimes; or if they be so, to be justly charged, upon his Christmas Festivity. And no mervail, if the matter be as he makes it seem to be; For first, for Superstition he says, alive in another, which though he grants, Yet not on Protestants at all: Or if Protestants be guilty of any Superstition, it is only of one kind, that is, And secondly, as for Will-worship, thats far from a crime, in his opinion; its nothing but voluntary worship, as innocent, as the Freewill-offerings, allowed by God in the time of the Law; Which assertions, if they be true; it will be easy for him, to vindicate his Festivities, from those charges laid agai • st them, as the grounds of laying them aside. But that I may, at once and together, both show and remove the grounds of the Reverend Doctors mist • kes, and facilitate the way to the reading of the following Discourses; I shall here very briefly recapitulate, what I suppose to be the causes of his Miscarriages, in this whole business. And they are these four misprisions.

1. That a man cannot be too Religious: This he confidently asserts, Sect. 33. both of the intention or degree, and of the extension or number of rites and ceremonies, taken into the worship of God, sect. 34. A distinction or two, will clear the way. A man may be said to be too Religious, either because he gives more to God than he deserves, but so he cannot be too Religious; or because he gives more than he requires, by the rule of worship; and so a man, may be too Religious. 2. In regard of worship commanded, especially natural worship, a man cannot be too Religious, in reference to the intention of the Devotion; as in love, fear, trust in God: (though in instituted worship, a man may be too Religious: as if he pray, or Fast to the wasting of his health, or neglect of his calling, &c. ) Put in uncommanded worship, the least Addition to the Rule of Worship, is too much, and such a man, may be said to be too Religious. This I prove.

1: If a man, or Church, may add to the Rule of Religi • n, then he, or they may by too Religious: But a man or Church may add to the Rule of Religion, ergo. The consequence is clear. The assumption is proved by Deut. 4.2. where all Additions to the word are prohibited.

2. Religion, (says the great Schoolman ) is a moral virtue (or very like is) and stands between 2. extremes; ergo. a man may as well be too much Religious, as too little.

3. The Doctor himself grants, there may be a Nimiety or excess of Religion, in

Of Superst. sect. 46. And this is the first ground of the Doctors mistake.

4. The second is,

Sect. 27. &c. which is proved to be so.

1. Because it is an Addition to the Rule of worship, and so an excess, as Super statutum. Though the original of the Word was Heathenish to signify Superstitum cultus, yet its well applied by Divines, to those Additions made to the Rule of worship. That which the Old Testament calls Addition to the word, the new calls Doctrines, traditions of men, Will-worship and Superstition.

2. As the defect in Religion is called profaneness, so the excess is called Superstition, as standing in opposition to it.

3. By the Doctors own concessions. For first he grants, Superstitious may denote such an excess Sect 31.2. The worship of Angels is an excess or Addition to the object of worship, and by him styled, that crime of Superstition. 3. Superstitum cultus, the worship of the worthies departed, by Heathens, or of Saints and Angels, by Papists, is called Superstition, Sect. 3. most properly, why? but that it adds to the Rule of worship. 4 Slavish fear of God, is granted to be Superstition, because Fear of God, being worship commanded in the first Commandment, Slavish fear is an excess of that Fear. sect. 24.25. 4. To affirm God to command when he doth not, is granted to be Superstition,

Sect 46.5. To place more virtue in things, than God or nature hath put in them, is granted to be an excess, because it adds to the promises of Christ, and called Superstition. sect. 45. That's the second ground of mistake.

3. The third is.

Which seems a contradiction in adjecto; For 1. Its expressly against the second Commandment; which forbids all worship not commanded by God. 2. Voluntary Worship is an Addition to the Rule of worship, and eo nomine, Superstition, and thats sinful. 3. Why is the worship of Angels, of Saints, &c. criminal? but because it was worship invented and added by the will of man; but thats granted to be sinful. Yet they do not urge it as a Commandment of God. 4. If Will-worship be innocent, I cannot see, how all that rabble of Superstitious worship at Rome, can be condemned; for they are not held out as Commandments of God, but as the Traditions of men.

4. The last ground of Mistake is, that the Doctor takes for granted,

Which remains, upon him to prove; before he can vindicate his Festival, (as he and others maintain it) from the double crime, of Superstition, and Willworship: which I prove by this one argument; If all Additions to the word in matter of worship, be criminous and sinful, as prohibited by God Deut. 4.2. and elsewhere; then no man or Church can without sin add any worship, to that commanded by God; But the first is true: ergo. These (I take it) are the principal grounds of the Doctors Misprisions, and are more largely shown in the Tracts themselves: To shut up this, If Superstition be an excess of Religion, (as already it is proved to be, and more hereafter) if Willworship or uncommanded worship, be an Addition to the Gospel Rule (as cannot well rationally be denied) I see not how the Doctor can wash his hands, or his Holiday, from those two crimes. For he makes &. (all which and more, appear in the Tract itself) which if they be not Additions, and excesses against the second and fourth Commandment; I leave to the judgment of the indifferent Reader, when he hath seriously considered and weighed, what hath been, and shall be spok • n hereafter.

OF SVPERSTITION.

Section 1.

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

§. 2. Superstition, in the general notion of it, is not unfitly defined, by the learned Schoolman,

(as profaneness is the other contrary, in the Defect. ) Not that a man can be too Religions indeed, in the commanded worship of God, with respect, or in order to the formal virtue of Religion; but (as one explains himself) in order to the Acts, or external means of worship, superadded by the wisdom, or will of man; Now, in Religion, or worship of God in general (as distinct from Justice, or Charity in the second Table,) four things are considerable, according to the four Commandments of the Table. 1 A right Object, God alone; 2 a right Matter, commanded worship; 3 a right manner, with all due Reverence; 4 a right Time, his own appointed Day: and answerable Superstition may extend to the whole first Table, when there is a Nimiety, or excess in any of these. For the Discoverie whereof, we must observe, that the Commandments of God, having everyone of them, a Negative, and an Affirmative part, (expressed or understood) the Duties of Religion do stand in the midst, as virtues, between two extremes: As e. g. there is a double error against the first Commandment, one in the Defect, that's Atheism, having no God at all; the other in excess, that is Polytheism, having too many. 2 In the second Commandment, there is, first a Defect, not observing God's prescribed worship, than an excess, in adding and observing devised worship. 3 So also in the third Commandment, there is a Defect, in want of Reverence due to the Divine Majesty (which is sometimes partly called profaneness ) and an excess in additions of Ridiculous rites and ceremonies or gestures, and the like. 4. In the fourth Commandment, there is a Defect, in observing no Time, when God's designed Sabbath is neglected, and an excess, when men institute other Holy Days and Times, as Jeroboam did, 1 King. 12.32. Thence it is apparent, that in this general sense, there may be Superstition, in, or against all the Commandments of the first Table, in the excessive part; and it were easy to observe, that many (Divines especially) do call the excesses of any Commandment, by the name of Superstition.

§. 3. And hence it may appear, that some are too short, in designing the Species or kinds of Superstition; As first the learned Schoolman; who makes but three kinds of it,

The first and last whereof, are referred by Divines to the first Commandment; and the other, illegitimate or uncommanded worship, to the second: For Idolatry, properly so called, is either the worship of a false God, instead of the true; or of many, or other God's with him: And Divination, being a consulting with the Devil, is a giving of that honor to him, which is due only to God, and so the worst kind of Idolatry; So he limits Superstition, only to two Commandments. But I find another Reverend Doctor, restraining it to one Commandment, viz. the second, when he designs it thus. He means that worship to be undue (which the Schoolman called illegitimate ) which is not commanded by God, but instituted and appointed by men: But this limits it only to the second Commandment, which is more properly called, Willworship, and is but one Species of Superstition: Whereas there may be Superstition against any of the four first Commandments. For instance: The worshiping of many God's, by the Athenians, and other Nations against what Commandment was it? Surely against the first; yet this by the Apostles is called Superstition, Act. 17.22. I perceive you are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , too Superstitious: And the Worshiping of Angels, Col. 2.18. with the true God, is an Excess against the first Commandment, yet by the Doctor himself, is called, that crime of Superstition. Again, when Baals Priests used those barbarous Ceremonies in their worship, leaping and cutting themselves; and when Papists use as many and more ridiculous Rites and gestures in their worship; this is an Excess against the third Commandment, yet who would not call these Superstition? as taking God's Name in vain. And lastly, when Jeroboam made a Feast day of his own head, and Papists dedicate Holy days to Saints; yea when the Jews were so scrupulous in observing their Sabbath, that they would not stand up to defend themselves, were not these Excesses of Religion, against the fourth Commandment? yet justly called their Superstition.

§. 4. Superstition then, in this general notion, as an Excess of Religion, hath as many species, or kinds, as there are Commandments of the first Table; But it is no easy matter, to discover all the kinds and ways, whereby it is committed in particular; or when we have found them, punctually to determine to what Commandment they do belong. And therefore the courteous Reader will easily pardon us, if we be not so logically accurate, as we would be in setting down the particular kinds. We shall labor to express some of them, as we find them held out by Divines and others, upon several occasions. There may be therefore 2. Heads of Superstition.

§. 5.1. Negative, when men abstain from some things, under a notion of Religion, or worship of God, which are not forbidden by God, but left free, and indifferent: either not forbidden, or, if once they were, now antiquated, or outdated, as our Doctor says: And of this sort was that, Col. 2.21.

§. 6.2. Positive, when men of their own hearts and Heads, set up ways of Religion, to worship God by, which he never commanded; And this, (as was said) may be committed, against any of the four first Commandments. This distinction, the Doctor owns, (of Negative, and Positive Superstition, ) and makes use of it against others hereafter, thus:

Thus far then we have his consent, for more ways than one, for men, at lest Protestants to be superstitious; which hereafter he does almost deny: Sect. 47, 48. of which in its place. Now this Positive Superstition, may be exemplified, in many particulars.

§. 7.1. In that which is properly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rendered by our Translators, by Superstition: Act. 25.19. and elsewhere; And this may be, either when men worship many God's, or only one (with the true) and for this the Athenians are called too superstitious, Act. 17.22. or else, when they have

They are the Doctors own words, Sect. 46. below. Only he is short, in short expressing, Religiously, by pretence of Divine precept, or prohibition, for it signifies also, a pretence of worshiping God thereby: When men have a slavish fear, or hard opinions of God, then they are justly called Superstitious.

§. 8.2. That which is more strictly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Willworship, which is, the placing the Worship of God, in those things which are the mere inventions, and institutions of men; never commanded by God: The Papists can give us instances enough; In the Sacrifice of the Mass, in habits, Eremiticall and Monastical life, Pennances, Pilgrimages, &c. which they esteem, and practice, as special worships of God, and are by the reformed Churches, styled justly Superstitious.

§. 9. 3. When men institute any rites or ceremonies, for the service of God, which are ridiculous (as the Baalites did) or unbeseeming the simplicity of Gospel-worship; This is no better, than Superstition, and a taking of God's Name in vain. The Church of Rome can afford us good store of these. These, though they be not Worships invented by men, yet are Additions to the worship commanded by God, and so an Excess in Religion, and justly branded as Superstition.

§. 10.4. When men put Holiness upon things, which God hath not sanctified by their own consecration; as in Daies, Churches, Vestments, &c. Jeroboam was deeply guilty of this Superstition. First in consecrating Chapels and Priests, for his Golden Calves, in Dan, and Bethel, and then in consecrating an Holy Day, and Annual Feast, unto his God's,

or as the word is, created, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An ordinary misdevotion, in the Church of Rome, and in some of late amongst ourselves: Though the Doctor grudge to grant it the name of Superstition, as we shall hear at Sect. 50.

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

§. 12.6. When men think by their own, uncommanded worship, and services of God, either to merit pardon of their sins, against other Commandments; as she Pro. 7.14. &c.

which were free willing offerings, as not commanded; &c. q. d. though I have run into debt, by my former whoredoms, I have now satisfied God with freewill-offerings, and have quit the score. Or to purchase Glory, at least a greater degree of Glory for themselves, and to supererogate for others, by doing something not commanded, as Papists plainly do. How near the Doctor comes to this kind of Superstition, we shall show anon, Willworship, Sect. 50. &c.

§. 13.7. When men place more pleasing of God, and expect more Acceptation from God, for services or worship uncommanded, than for those commanded by God. The Apostle intimates some such conceit in men, 1 Cor. 8.8. when he says,

yet such as abstained from some meats, had such thoughts of themselves. And this shall be manifested to be the opinion and expectation of the Doctor, for his voluntary worship (worship not commanded by God) to be better pleasing, and to find better Acceptance from God: Tract of Willworship. Sect. 16.19. and here Sect. 52.

§. 14.8. Lastly (to add no more) the placing of more virtue and efficacy, in things, than either Nature, or the Institution of God hath placed in them: This is acknowledged to be an Excess, and so Superstition by the Doctor, sect. 45.

His instances given, are very pertinent and considerable. which is done, not only by Papists in crossing themselves to scare away the Devil, but also by many ignorant, and ill-taught Protestants, who require crossing of their Children in Baptism, as thinking them not well baptized, without. the common Superstition of all natural men, and Hypocrites. Concerning which, his judgment is good. I do not well understand, but shall consider in its place.

§. 15. Having thus made way for our debate with the Doctor, by showing the Nature of Superstitiion; we shall now enter the lists, and consider what he says about it. And to his first Section, we say: It may be true,

But it is as true, that some that think themselves may justly be charged with it. Commonly those that are most Superstitious, are most confident of their Innocency, and piety; Many of the Romish Proselytes, do think they are far enough from this crime, in their highest willworships, and rather to deserve Commendation from men, and more Acceptation from God, than blame from any. And no marvel, if they understand Superstition, in the same sense, that the Doctor does, in this discourse. That is,

§. 16.

Sect. 2. That the Heathens so defined it, is true, and that the worshiping of such then, and by Papists now, is one kind of Superstition, we have already granted; as being the Worshiping of Creatures, with, and besides the Creator, which is Idolatry against the first Commandment. But the Doctor will not say, (I think) that this is the only superstition to be found in the World, either then, or now. For he grants 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Excessive fear of the Deity, to have been another kind of Superstition amongst the Heathens; and other kinds also among Christians, as we shall hear anon. Some there are (and they no mean ones) that derive it from super, and sto, or statuo, as supra statutum, some worship instituted by men, above the statute law of God; But we rather rest in the definitiion of the Schoolman; which may extend to the other Commandments, whereas this limits it to the second.

§. 17. The Greek word for Superstition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; though it seems to come nearer the Doctors sense, of superstitum cultus, yet the Etymology of the word, does not import so much; but rather a slavish fear of a Deity, by imagining it, Cruel, Tyrannicall, &c. as the Doctors words,

sect. 9. For though the latter part of the word signifies daemons, or Spirits departed, yet the former part does not signify worship, but fear: not that fear, which in Scripture, is often put for the whole worship of God, but a slavish fear of that God whom they worship; whereupon they (not knowing, or not contented with prescribed worship) devise some way of worship of their own heads, to please and propitiate their God; which may well be called Superstition, or will-worship; the one against the first, the other against the second Commandment.

§. 18. The Doctor from the 4. Sect. to the 10. having delivered the many senses of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; he says,

This clears what I said before, that this word and worship is rather Idolatry against the first Commandment, which forbids the worship of any God but the one true God, or any others with him, which is Polytheism, than that kind of Superstition, which is the giving of false, that is uncommanded worship, to the true God, against the second Commandment.

§. 19. But he adds, Sect. 11.

If (say I) they were so called, because they worshiped more God's, then they were Polytheists against the first Commandment; If, because they were more devout or pious ( impious rather) in worshiping the true God ignorantly, in a false manner, then their sin was against the second Commandment; and in both it was Superstition, in several kinds.

§. 20. What Festus meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 25.19. is not much material; its like he spake it with scorn enough, not of Paul's only (as the Doctor seems to limit it) but of the whole Jewish Religion; (for so the words may import, and are so translated by ours.) But to make the latter part of the verse, to expound the former;

I doubt, a strain of the Doctors Criticism; compounding things, which are in the Text distinct. For Festus says, but not a word there, of worship of him, as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Heros: which may the better be believed, because he was accused of questions of their Law. cap 23.29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and chap. 24. where Tertullus lays in his charge against Paul, there is not one word of this, but other grievous crimes, Sedition, Seducement, profanation of the Temple, &c. v. 5.6. But the Doctor having taken liberty (as oft he delights to do) to vary from the common Translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their, rendering it by (his) and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , reading Religion; to qualify, at least, Superstition; he goes on to make his Comment suitable; that not in part, as those departed Daemons were supposed; but in the whole man, as raised from the dead.

§. 21. What Epicurus Doctrine was, or what Heathens thought of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we are not much Solicitous; The Doctor having shown a great deal of Reading and Learning, for many sections together, from the 14. to the 27. to little purpose, except to cloud the business now in hand, to lead us away, in a mist of his own making, from the true and proper sense of the word, amongst Christians. Yet it seems the Heathens did often take the word in an ill sense, & branded Religions which they did not like, by that name. Plutarch taxes the Jews for their Superstition, in two things remarkable: 1.

they would not rise from their seats, on their Sabbath day, which was an Excess against the fourth Commandment, and gross Superstition. For necessity was privileged to break the Sabbaths Rest. 2. which being a horrid superstition, was (as the former) intended as a worship of the true God, and yet was interpreted no better, than sacrificing to Devils, Psal. 106.37. as all Idolatry was by the Apostle 1. Cor. 1 • .12. which though in other respects, it was against the first Commandment, gross Idolatry, so in making it a worship of the true God, (when as somewhere he says ) it was a kind of Superstition, against the second Commandment. And in a word, the Etymologist speaks fully our sense. Sect. 23. cited by the Doctor.

§. 22. From that large discourse about the word, at last, Sect. 27. the Doctor comes to apply it to his purpose, and to discover three inconsequences, in our customary use of the word, Superstition.

But, (with his favor) this is not the question between us; but, whither in the Scripture, and Orthodox Divines, commenting upon that word, it do not always signify something evil, and particularly, excessive and false worship. What the Etymologist thought of it, as the common opinion of Christians, we newly heard: And this is the more probable, because even most of the Popish Commentators do take the word in an ill sense, and render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by Superstition; without any pretence of a good sense of it; which, no doubt, they would be glad to hear, to color, and cover their own Willworship, and Superstition. The Doctors reasons for his opinion, have been considered afore, but briefly now again; No doubt, but Heathens did think well of their own worship: But it being a false worship, it was never the better for that. And it is observable, that in all the Doctors former large discourse, he brings only Heathens, to show the meaning of the word (bad enough sometimes) but not one Divine, Greek or Latin Father, or any Moderne writer, Papist, or other, who take it in a good sense; which was not, I believe for want of good will, but something else. 2. His next reason is Something hath been said to this above, Sect. 20. and now we add; It appears rather to signify something ill, in his opinion; For Festus was not a man of so much Religion, or had any such esteem of the Jewish Religion, as to give it any credit; and therefore spake of it, as of a Superstition, as men use to call all, not of their own Religion, by way of defamation, as the Doctor says, Sect. 24.3. The third reason is, And is not worshiping of the true God, ignorantly, with their own devised worship, a Superstition justly to be condemned? was it not gross Idolatry, and sinful Superstition in the Israelites, to worship the true God, in the Golden Calf? 4. But this, as it begs the question, so is it against the text it self. both in their worshiping of so many false God's, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and a God in their ignorant worship of the true God, and in their vicious rites of worship. And this sense, the Doctor himself gave, Sect. 11. though the word imports, too Superstitions, too Religious; which is a Nimiety or Excess in Religion, and so justly called Superstition, in an ill sense, unless the Doctor think, that to worship many false God's, and to worship the true God ignorantly, be worthy the name of true Religion, which the Apostle there censures, by the name of Idolatry, ver. 16. And the vulgar rendering the word, ver. 22. by Superstitiosiores, too Superstitious, cannot intend it in a good sense; yea the Doctor Sect. 31. grants that Superstitiosus in the Positive, signifies Excess more then in the Comparative.

§. 23. The second Inconsequence (he says) is this:

But I believe, this is a mistake; None that I know, make such a consequence; but rather thus: That what rite or ceremony soever, is made a part of worship, without such example or precept of Scripture, is Superstitious, and therefore condemned.

§. 24. The third inconsequence, is a worse mistake;

For the first charge, I believe he cannot give an instance of any one understanding Christian, that ever did abstain from observance indifferent, because commanded by lawful authority? but rather because they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worship. For the other, that they have been used by Papists, is not all, but that by them they have been abused, and accounted parts of worship, and may easily return to be so accounted by others.

§. 25. We acknowledge this assertion, that

What says he to it? First he confesses Agreed, for Religion it self is sometimes taken for Superstition, when it is applied to a false Religion: And all such Excess in worship not prescribed, is a Nimiety, and culpable, what ever A. Gellius dreamed, as an ill Judge of Superstition.

§. 26. If so used by some Authors, yet he can say much against it, as 1.

We profess we regard not, what the best of Heathens say in matter of worship, who never knew, what true worship of God meant. 2. &c. It is no slight or casual thing, as he makes it; for all Divines that speak of this matter, do generally condemn it, as a thing of ill name and fame, even Papists themselves: and its proved by this Topic, by most of them, because it is an Excess in Religion, and illegitimate worship. 3. with slighting and scorn enough spoken; But why then doth not the Doctor in all this discourse give us the names of those many, Antient, Authentic Fathers, &c. that take it in a good sense? He uses not to be so sparing, where he hath such plenty of Authorities. 4. The last is something nearer the question; which supposing it to be taken in an ill sense, for excess, &c. says, we consider what he says to both.

§. 27.

But what says he to the arguments of the great Schoolman, who proves Superstition to be an excess in Religion? and withal shows how he means it. We say (as afore) in prescribed worship, there can be no Excess of degree: The want of the highest degree there is a Defect; A man cannot pray too earnestly (what ever he may do too often ) for that is natural and prescribed worship: But if a man shall tender to God, devised worship, the least degree here is too much: As for too often praying, the Euchitae were unjustly condemned, if this was not a fault: Yes (says he) And why not both these? For God having prescribed all men Callings to be waited on; he that shall pray continually to the Interruption thereof, sins as well, as he that prays not at all. But (says he) We say the neglect of their Duties, is caused by the Excess of this constant, uncommanded Devotion: and so one sin is the cause of another. As for their laying it on themselves or others as an obligation, its true, thats a fault; but suppose they had laid no such obligation, but only thought it a matter of greater perfection, more pleasing, and acceptable to God; had not this been Superstition also? His supposition of is not feisable in this life; unless he could find a man, that had no Calling to labor in. If any man might have been allowed to pray or serve God continually, Adam in innocence might have been the man; and yet he was set to a calling, to dress the Garden. which he collects from Sa • nt Austin, shall give us a double inference; First that an institution of worship (by men) may be Superstitious: 2. That he seems to contradict himself; For in worship commanded, as prayer is, a man may be Superstitious, if he pray constantly, and neglect his calling; which latter he cannot but do, if he do the former.

§. 28. If the Excess be in the extension, as taking in too many rites and ceremonies, into the service of God, when he says, 1.

But first, we shall say, that multitudes of rites and ceremonies, are prejudicial to the simplicity of Gospel worship, and therefore either are, or will be quickly Superstitious. 2. We say further, that rites and ceremonies, be they never so few, if introduced as parts of worship, are Superstitious, and will worship: as certainly in the old Law, the least rite and ceremony prescribed by God, was a part of worship, whither they were significant or not: and so they would be now, if any such be found prescribed: but if made parts of worship by men, they were Superstitious; as will not be denied of many rites in the Church of Rome. 3. Though some rites and ceremonies must necessarily be in Religion, yet they are such as pertain to Order and Decency, 1 Cor. 14.40. which yet are not left to the wit and will of man, to appoint what, and as many as shall seem decent or orderly to them; but are determined partly by the general precepts of God; partly by the nature of the things themselves, & partly by circumstances which occasionally offer themselves; and are rather called circumstances of worship, as time, place, gesture, which are mon adjuncts of Religious and civil affairs, (instanced by himself) than properly Religious, in ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies; much less to be accounted parts of worship,

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

§. 30. Of this kind, are those three sorts of significant ceremonies specified by him;

These and such like, as they have degenerated into Superstition, so in themselves, they are not any parts of worship; which they would be, if taught or practiced as necessary, or making the observers more Religious than others, or more acceptable to God, &c. But their significant ceremonies are Superstitious, when neither in their nature, nor by any instituted of God, they are instituted by men to signify some grace to be procured from God, in the use of such ceremonies: of which sort the Church of Rome hath many.

§. 31. But herein the Doctor is again mistaken, that he says,

This indeed, was our reason, but not the sole one; just such an answer Bellarmine gives to an argument from Christian liberty against imposition of new Ceremonies by men: To which the learned Chamier replies: But we say further, 1. The false Apostles did acknowledge Christ come in the flesh, joining Circumcision, &c. with him; and yet are blamed for observing of them: 2. Or was it the teaching of them only as necessary, that procured their blame? Nor that only, but for putting the yoke of them, upon the Disciples necks, when Christ had taken it off, Act. 15. Gal. 5. 1 &c. 3. Unless observing of them, and teaching them as necessary, be one and the same thing, here are two causes of their interdiction to Christians: And if so, then I ask, whether, if he had observed some Jewish Ceremony which did not foreshow Christ to come, (some such there were) but significant only of some things past, (though they had not taught it necessary) the Apostle would not have blamed them for that, as Superstitious? or had they devised any new rites and ceremonies, &c. would not the Apostle have blamed them for that also, as too Superstitious?

§. 32. But the Doctor gives his vote, to the old Rule;

Few, for many reasons, which we approve as good. But then at last, in a manner grants, they may be many, But this is to unvote the old Rule in part: For if they be Salubrious, wholesome, no matter how many they be: yea, "if but negatively as harmless, which is a door wide enough to let in most of the Romish Superstitions; what harm is there in many of them? good innocent Ceremonies, as some have called them: But if positively for edification (as all willworshipers think of their own inventions) is that a plea to bear men out, in the multitude of Ceremonies, added to the worship of God? And suppose them few and wholesome, in the judgment of men; if they be imposed as parts of worship, or efficacious to procure grace, or Acceptance from God; are they not too many, be they never so few, and thought never so wholesome? Lastly, who shall be the Physician to judge of their number and salubrity? not every private man, to be sure, Sect. 55, 56. of indecency in them, much less of the number or wholesomenesse of them. Who then? the higher powers, Sect. 55. whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, he expresses not; But if men, or any number of men, may be competent Judges in the worship of God, will not the Wisdom and wit of man expatiate here, and grow wanton? One man or Church, thinks, this is very wholesome, for edification and devotion; another as wise as he, will add another, till the Church have a yoke put upon her neck, as heavy, or heavier than the Jews. Who knows not the multitude of wholesome Ceremonies of Rome, came in at this door.

§. 33. This question of a competent Judge in such matters, is the matter to be resolved, because the Doctor makes so many distinctions about these wholesome Ceremonies, that vulgar wits are not capable of them:

What ordinary man (who yet hath a Conscience to be satisfied in the worship of God) is capable of these distinctions? He confesses Yet they are not of the Doctors opinion; but think them all, both fit and necessary. But yet he hath a salve for such. And I pray what is Superstition, but folly and vanity, in the worship of God? Are not Idols and all false worship called vanities, and folly? Let the Doctor show his dislike of such, as he will, yet if men may be Judges, what are fit for number and wholesomness, every after-comer will think himself as wise, as he that went before, till they have loaded the Christian above the Jew. Besides, as the learned Chamier well observes; there may be many mischiefs in a few, if the Authority to institute them be in the Church, or any man, or men: as experience tells us: To pass this: if Superstition be so named, because it is Super statutum, above the Statute Law of worship; or because it is an Excess of services added to the worship of God; certainly these unfit, improper Ceremonies may well be deemed such, and the Doctor need not grudge the child the name of Superstition. As for those that charge such trifles, (they are to the Doctor, belike, but trifles ) Let them for me, see how to get out. I only still say, what ever deserves the name of Superstition, is a Nimiety and Excess in Religion; and what ever is an Excess in Religion, is Superstition: Let's hear wherein the Doctor is pleased to place it.

§. 34.

We spake something in general to this, but now we shall assume, of all those Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, unfit, improper, &c. and of all superadded parts of worship what ever; They do place more virtue in them, than either naturally, or by the rule of the word belongs to them; ergo they are Superstitious. The Assumption I prove thus: They place in them virtue to please God by them, to procure more acceptance from God, and his blessing upon them; which neither naturally, nor by the rule of the word, the institution of God, they have in them: ergo. more might be added, but I forbear.

But what means the Doctor to add, to his disjunction,

Had the purer ages of the Church (after the Apostles ) any power to put virtue into things, which they had not, either naturally, or by the Rule of God's word? If he denies this, the addition was superfluous: If he affirm it, he begs the question; For we say, the purest Church hath no Authority in matters of Religion, to put virtue or efficacy into them, but God only, in Nature, or by his institution, in the word: Or if any, the Purest Church, shall take upon her to do it, I shall make bold to add the Doctors words, in part. And what is that but a lie, and an Addition to the word: a Nimiety, or excess of Religion, as he calls it, that is, sinful Superstition, and that would impure the purest Church.

§. 35. The Nimiety must be

We take what he grants, this is one kind of Superstition, (as we noted above in stating of the question, at Sect. 7.) but not the only; there are many more. And I like the Doctors reason well, here; And this is Superstition. Sect 47. And this he confesses True, in things left indifferent and free by God, he is not guilty of this kind of Superstition; if he do them, or abstain. But yet he may, of another kind: that is, if he place more virtue in them, (in doing or abstaining) than either naturally or by the rule of the word, is due to them, (as he said before.) But in matter of worship it is not so; For there, it is a Nimiety and excess, to do what God hath not commanded, as we have often said.

§. 36. When as he concludes,

it is a great mistake. For 1. he granted another kind. Sect. 45. 2. All Willworship devised by men, and added as parts of God's worship, hath been proved to be an Excess in Religion, and so Superstition; besides the rest, which we have noted above. As for his addition, they fall under his first kind of Superstition, Sect. 45. Placing anl putting more Virtue in them than God in Nature, or by his Institution hath put into them. Which though they be not properly Excesses of the Christian Religion, (being common to Heathens, and not properly worship ) yet are they Excesses in Christians, that use them, and a kind of Superstition, call it Religious, or Civil, as he pleases.

§. 37. And now we are come to another consideration, of the last way, that he supposes, may be called Superstition; and that is,

We shall consider what he says for it.

§. 38. 1. He asks,

The latter only, we would answer: Separation to holy, from common uses: that is, such a separation to holy uses, that the things may no more be alienated to common uses: this is proper holiness.

§. 39. But then the only inquiry will be,

He tells us here, by whom the separation is made, but not a word, how far, or in what difference, a thing separated, by the several Authors, is made holy, or whither it be equal in all. That a thing made holy, by a private person, is equally holy with that, done by a particular Church; and so upwards, that of the general Church, equally with that of the Apostles, and that of the Apostles equal with that of Christ himself: this would first have been resolved. He seems to make the difference of the Holiness, from their several Seperations, to be only gradual; but we suppose it to be specifical, at least, between the Seperation of God or Christ, and that of the Church (to say nothing yet of the Apostles. ) And withal, we say, we desire a proof, that any but God, or Christ, or his Apostles guided by his Spirit, can make anything properly Holy: Now to make a thing properly holy, is not, to separate it only to holy uses from common, (as the Doctor defines it. Sect. 50.) but to make it, 1. a part of worship, 2. to be efficacious to work and convey holiness, to him that rightly uses it: 3. to make the service & person, more accepted. 4. To give a ground of expectation of a Blessing, upon some promise thereof in the word, &c. In this sense none but God alone, can Sanctify and Seperate anything, to Holy, from common uses. All which the Doctor either takes no notice of, or takes as granted, others may do. For he says, We shall speak something considerable to this. For 1. The difference between Christ and his Apostles, and the rest is not well, or not distinctly laid out: For the Apostles authority was also Divine, by Christ's commission. 2. Then it follows, that the Authority of the Apostles, in their Seperation, differed much from that of the Universal Church, & the rest, as much as Divine & human. 3. The precept or example of the Universal Church (as it cannot be demonstrated ever to have concurred, in making anything holy, there never having been an Ecumenical Council, truly so called, so) cannot make anything properly holy, with the respects afore said; but only improperly, with respect to holy things or duties, so made by God: e. g. In times or places separated, by God or men; there is this difference (besides those above) that Time or Place, sanctified by God, require holy duties, to till them up. But separated by men, they are to wait upon Holy duties. In the first, the duties are appointed for the Time, or Places sake: In the other, the time or place, are appointed for the Duties sake: but this is to make any Time, or any Place, when and where those duties are performed, as holy as all other times or places, that is, the one no more Holy than another. We therefore deny, that either the Universal Church, or any particular Church, or any private man, can make anything properly Holy: which the Doctor doth not at all undertake to prove. Only thus he goes on; But 1. I suppose the Doctor will account himself obliged to an Apostolical institution, by Divine precept also: I had thought Apostolical and Divine, had been both one with the Doctor; but I perceive he makes them differ, and yet differences Apostolical from Ecclesiastical; as if the Apostles were neither Divine, nor Human; but something between both. 2. By this distinction of his, the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition, in placing Holiness, in things, times, places, &c. by borrowing the Doctors answer; and that is no Superstion, says he, say they.

§. 40. But he goes on,

But 1. what means he by his voluntary oblation? If his willingness in tendering commanded worship, he cannot do that worship aright, without respect to the command: If voluntary worship of his own, without a command, he hath no promise of acceptance, and so can expect none. Yea, he may rather expect, or fear punishment, threatened in the 2 ^d . Commandment, to such worship. 2. The Dr. may remember, that Sect. 45. he blamed that for Superstition, and gives the reason Sect, 46. Now how will he free himself from Superstition, in his voluntary oblation, that is, his uncommanded worship, unless he can show a promise in the Gospel, for such acceptance. For naturally there is no such Virtue in a Willworship; and Institution he cannot plead; for that were a Contradiction; viderit ipse. But he says still; If he mean, that his resolution and vow, makes his voluntary oblation more accepted; he adds to his Superstition, to second Willworship with a vow, and so profanes his vow, as well as the worship of God. If he mean, that his vow is a further degree of worship; what will he answer to the Papists, who make vows of single life, and poverty, &c. to be a special worship of God; which he rejects. If he say, their Vowes are of things unlawful, but mine of things lawful: I grant this difference, but then say, that in making those vows, or things vowed to be parts of the worship of God, they both agree, and both are Superstitious.

§. 41. It is not then

&c. That only makes him faulty, and that perhaps (says he) capable of the title of Superstition. For if either the Church or he, place divine worship, acceptance (more acceptance because not commanded) or more perfection, &c. in such performances, it is, and will be Superstition still what ever they think. Besides, in devised worship, it is not enough to free from guilt of Superstition, to say or think, I account this or that holy, only by the Authority of the Church, and not of Christ; For whosoever is the Author of such Holiness, he places more in it, than God allows, and so must needs be Superstitious.

§. 42. Obj. Papists and other Superstitious persons have don so, and so the thing is Superstitious, and must be forborne, Sol. 1.

True, but we suppose your voluntary oblation, not to be a thing commanded, but to be a thing forbidden, as all Willworship is: and therefore to be forborne. 2. He says, To be thought Superstitious, when I may avoid it, is a wrong to my credit; to cause others to be so, is a wrong to their Souls: But these are not consequent of that we speak of, that is, of Willworship, which is one of the worst kinds of Superstition; tendering that to God, as worship, which he commanded not.

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

OF WILL-WORSHIP.

Section 1.

HAD the Reverend and learned Doctor (as it became him) distinguished the words; either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, or Willworship in English, before he began his Defense of them; we should better have been able, to judge of his Discourse about them. For the words, in both languages, may be taken in a double sense. 1. For Voluntary, Spontaneous, or willing worship, that is willingness and freeness, in worship commanded by God; and then they were too blame, that put an ill notion upon them. Or 2. For worship devised by the wit, and appointed by the will of man, as contradistinguished, to the wisdom, and will of God; and then it was not so much the ill-Fortune (as he calls it) as the just punishment of them,

For the sum and scope of the second Commandment, in the Affirmative part, being this. and in the Negative part, The very name of will (of man) put to worship of God, as opposed to the will of God, the only Rule of worship, is as a brand in the forehead of it, to characterize it, as condemnable in all.

§. 2. How oft, or seldom the Greek word is used in other Authors, or the Translators of the Old Testament, we shall not trouble ourselves to inquire; when the thing signified by it, (in the second sense above, in which sense the Reverend Doctor doth and must take it, or he hath no Adversarie, ) that is,

is so much decried, and declaimed against, in Scripture, as an high Indignity and affront, to the Divine Majesty. This is something, little to the credit of it; That the simple word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are but twice a pe • ce, used in the book of wisdom, and always in an ill notion: 2. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 itself, being but once used in the New Testament: it is, (by the judgment of most Interpreters, Protestant and Popish) taken in an ill notion, as shall appear hereafter.

§. 3. What the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the place, Col. 2.23. signifieth, may indeed be gathered from the Contents: But the Reverend Doctor, seems too short, in laying of it out:

This is in part true; some false teachers might impose some Doctrines upon their brethren, as God's Commands, when they were not, as being now outdated by Christ; but the scop of the Apostle is, to dispute, in this Chapter, against the corruptions that were creeping in, in their Christian worship; which was the use and end of those Doctrines; and to stablish the Colossians against them: Which that it may appear, let us review the context, from the 4. verse downwards. Thus he begins: In the Greek, they are more significant; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Put upon you Sophisticall Paralogismes; probabilitate sermonis, by probable arguments, as Beza; by Rhetorical insinuations, or sophistical subtleties, as D. Davenant, explains it, to lead you away from Christ. Now the Apostle goes on, to discover some of those toiles, and ways, whereby Seducers did beguile their followers. 1. Philosophical speculations, having a show of much wisdom; ver. 8. an instance whereof is given in the 18. ver. 2. Traditions and Inventions of men, superadded, or continued in the worship of God; an instance whereof is in the 20.22. ver. 3. Mosaical Ceremonies, revived, after they were abrogated by Christ: of which he speaks, ver. 16.17, His scope in all, is to dispute As that learned and judicious Professor, expresses it. And the Apostle opposes this only against them, ver. 8. " They are not after Christ, but invented and imposed by men; Not after Christ, i. e. not after the Doctrine, or Commandment of Christ, in the Gospel; which he express • s in another phrase, ver. 19. but Whence it appears, that the Reverend Doctor seems mistaken, when he says; For the Apostle speaks expressly, these impositions, Touch not, taste not, &c. and ver. 8. "after the Traditions of men, to worship God, by the observation of them: The worship of God, did once consist in these observations, and Abstinencies; and the false Teachers put them upon their followers, as still useful to this end: Having done this, he sets an ill Character upon those Doctrines of worship; not any Doctrines or Commands of Christ: and so no better, than Willworship, &c, The Doctor seems to place the illness of this practice in this; Which though it be true in part, yet is not all that the Apostle here intended: but this he also adds, that they, placing the worship of God, in those observances, not after Christ, but after the Commandments and traditions of men, did fall into Willworship; which had a show of wisdom, but no more. For it is not only (sinful) Willworship, to teach and observe the Old Ceremonies as parts of God's worship, when they are abolished; but also to invent a new way of worship (as that of worshiping Angels was for certain ver. 18.) and to put it upon God, as an acceptable worship.

§. 4. That we have not mistaken the Doctors meaning, will appear by that which he adds, about

This is true, the Apostle hath here no reflection on the Magistrates making laws, in indifferent things: but yet, if the Magistrate, or Church should invent and impose any new way of worshiping God (as the Church of Rome, hath done many) would not the Apostles arguing conclude them to be Will-worship, as well as if they had urged and taught some antiquated ceremonies to be observed, as a part of the worship of God The Doctor grants and asserts, And if he should teach or impose some antiquated worship, upon his people, though not as the command of God, would he not be a Teacher of false worship also? As for his instance of David, who appointed the Levites to serve from the age of 20. years, whereas God by Moses had appointed it, but from 25. years old &c. It is first Impertinent, for he brings it as an instance of a Magistrates power in a thing indifferent, whereas this was in a matter of Religion, and more then so, in a matter formerly Commanded by God; wherein, what he did, is not imitable by any Magistrate now: who hath no power to order anything in Religion, against a former Order of God, as in the case in hand, there was. What then may be said, for David's altering the appointment of God (as in some other things besides? Divines do answer, that David was a Prophet, inspired by God, or directed by some other Prophet, how to Order the affairs of the Temple, and worship of God. And this to me is evident, by texts of Scripture. 1 Chron. 28.19. which he ascribes to the Spirit of God, ver. 12, 13. & cap. 23.27.

§. 5. The full importance of the words, ver. 22. (he says) is this;

But 1. why doth he refuse our Translation of those word, For the verb, from whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is derived, signifies sometimes, simply, to use. And the Civil Lawyers take Abusus, for the consuming use, ordinarily: 2. Whither the Apostle speaks of the meats, or of those ordinances of abstaining, both may be said to perish in the using: The meats apparently, and the Ordinances themselves, in this sense, that whereas whilst they were under God's command, they were profitable to the observers; now being outdated, they perish with the using, without any spiritual advantage. 3. There is little or nothing in the text, to import, that they were imposed and taught by the False Treachers, as Divine obliging precepts (though if so, that had been an abuse of them) but rather that they were the Commandments and Doctrines of men; as the next words following are: and herein the Doctor places the danger, Sect. 6. as we shall see. Just as that Doctrine, ver. 18. concerning worshiping of Angels, in a voluntary humility, &c. was the Doctrine, or command of a man "vainly puffed up in his fleshly mind, but could not be pretended, much less imposed as a Divine command. So the Doctrines and Traditions of the Pharisees, were not pleaded to be the Commandments of God, but expressly called the Commandments of men, Math. 15.9. and opposed to the Commandments of God, ver. 3.6. And in this Chapter, ver. 8. Those Doctrines are called the Traditions of men, and rudiments of the World. 4. I would ask the Doctor, whither the placing of the worship of God, in observation of those Ordinances of Abstinence, though not taught nor imposed as God's Commands, upon a man's self, or others, were not an abuse of them, and being a self-devised Willworship, were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . as destructive, as the urging them still as God's Commands? His great mistake is, that this was the only abuse of them, and that for so he says: which now he may see, they were not. And lastly the following words ver. 23. seem to imply, the abuse to have been, not that they imposed them, as Divine Commands, but as parts of Divine worship (which the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports) in a pretended humility, and not sparing of the body, &c. For he says, they have a show of wisdom, not as the Commands of God, but in Willworship, &c.

§. 6. Yet let us hear, wherein the Doctor, places the danger and destructivenesse of them.

Stay there a while: Then (say I) they did not impose them as Commands of God; nor did the danger lie in that; But I desire to know, what it was that they imposed, by those Ordinances and Doctrines? was it not, a way of worshiping God by those Abstinencies, touch not, &c. I think the Doctor will not deny it: For it is not to be meant of imposing of Human Ordinances, about indifferent things, by the Magistrate; he hath cautioned against that, Sect. 3. & 4. but of Teachers, imposing them as Ordinances of worship, in Religion: and therein the danger did consist; because they imposed on men, human Ordinances and Doctrines, to worship God by. The Doctors gloss of his own former words will now prove his own, that is, singular, when he adds The danger and destructivenesse rather consisted in this, that they were but the Commandments and Doctrines of men, placing the worship of God, in those observances, which either he never Commanded, or were now outdated.

§. 7. And now we are come to the 23. Verse; which the Doctor makes to be,

But this may prove a mistake; for the words rather contain a description of the reason of that danger and destructivenesse, in them: viz. because they were no other, no better than Willworship, w • th a fair pretence of Wisdom, because the Worship of God, was lately placed in them: and they carry a great pretension of Humility, and Selfdeniall, in abstaining from things pleasing to the body, which they thought no doubt, would be pleasing unto God, and an acceptable service. The words indeed may be variously rendered by Interpreters, but without any great difficulty or difference. For the most part, they agree in the sense, though they differ in words. And I believe the Doctors Interpretation of it, is singular, without any precedent, either Antient, or Modern, Protestant, or Papist. Thus he paraphraseth the words. But this is a strange Liberty, in Interpreting scripture, not only that it waves the Interpretation of all our own Translators, of all the Ancients, and even of Papists themselves for the most part (whom this gloss would much please ) but also that he doth not bring his mind to the Scripture, but strains the Scripture to speak his sense and meaning. To examine it a little. 1. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here signifies, some real matter (what ever it doth elsewhere) is gratis dictum, and against the stream of Interpreters: Some render it Imaginem, as Jerome; some speciem, some pretextum: And the Greek Fathers, oppose against it, truth and power: what is it then, but a show or appearance? 2. That he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by piety, is as strange, in this place, (however in these Proverbs, and elsewhere, it may signify so) when most interpret it 1. by Wisdom: that is, Which to be the sense here, is most probable upon these grounds. First from the context, ver. 8. the Apostle calls it Philosophy, and ver. 18. he says) the Worshiper of Angels, in finding out that way of worship: For Superstition and Willworship ever pretends to Wisdom, to be wiser than God, in prescribing his worship: and this makes it so dangerous and destructive, that men set their wisdom against, and above God's; Secondly it may very well be parallel, to that place, 1 Cor. 2.4, 5, 6. where the Wisdom of God, and men are so flatly opposed, in preaching of the Gospel. And this pretext of wisdom in Willworship arises from a double ground, 1. From the fraud of Impostors, who always boast, that their Traditions proceed from the Spirit of wisdom; as the Pharisees, and Montanus did: 2. From the carnal minds of Superstitious men, who are much pleased to seek for righteousness and salvation, and to put holiness in external rites and exercises; as that learned professor, on the place, hath well observed. 3. To assert that those things (those Abstinences, as a worship of God) have somewhat of true and real wisdom or piety in them, is a plain begging of the question, now between us. For we say, (as almost all Interpreters do) they have only a show of wisdom, but no truth, nor reality, and that the Apostle condemns them as Willworship, which yet the Doctor only denies, by asserting the contrary, but proves not. 4. what presum ption is this, to read the words asunder, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contrary to all Greek copies, and Latin Interpreters, only to make out his own gloss? And yet let him take his choice, and read as he please; it will not advantage him at all; for still it comes but to this, or piety, not somewhat of wisdom, much less some true real matter of wisdom in them. The Apostles scope being (as we think, and he must not beg the contrary) not to hold out somewhat of wisdom or piety in them, but rather of folly and impiety, as we shall show hereafter. Lastly, (as to this Section) he leaves out the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quidem, which is • n extenuating particle: Or they have indeed a show of wisdom, but in Willworship and Willhumility, &c. It's true, Interpreters differ about the placing of the Adversative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Some understand it to be understood before Willworship, as afore; some at those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : they have a show of wisdom, but are yet of no price or worth. Herome thinks the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is redundant, others think something is wanting; thus (after the manner of the Hebrews ) which things have a show of wisdom, but not the truth. Much like that place 2 Tim. 3.5. However, the Doctor did not well to conceal this particle; and to render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by voluntary worship, having not yet told us, what he means by it: of which anon.

§. 8. That the last part of the verse,

which is so unlike piety, is another gloss like the former, an assertion without proof. For the neglecting, or punishing of the body (as the Doctor phrases it) by Abstinence from things allowed by God, they placing the worship of God in it, hath indeed a show of pretended wisdom or piety, as preferring the worship of God, before the belly, or body; but no truth, and is equally condemned, as a Will worship, by the Apostle; At least, this is the question, and must not be begged.

§. 9. Yet this the Doctor doth: For he takes it as granted, with not a little confidence;

and thereupon infers, and resolves, " that there is no ill character set upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Willworship, by which we shall examine, when we have heard, what in his judgment is noted by it, which is this; But there is a great mistake, in comprehending these Abstinences under the Freewill offerings. For both, the Freewill offerings were something Positive, and these Abstinences were Negative, rather not-offering, than offering, Touch not, taste not, &c. and also these Abstinences were commanded by special Laws, but Freewill-offerings (he says) were not required of them, by obligation of particular Law: This difference is enough at present, we shall say more hereafter. And now we attend his discourse, consisting in three things.

§. 10. First (he says) he will give his reasons, for his first Assertion,

which he endeavors by 6. Arguments, Sect. 11. Before I come to the particulars, I cannot but note in general, that taking the word here, in a good sense, the Doctor complies too much with Papists (most of them taking it in an ill sense) who use to take off the force of the Objection by protestants, from this place, (against their Willworship, in their many Traditions of worship) by answering that it is taken here in a good sense, and that (as the Doctor does) for voluntary Religion, or worship. Which good sense, the very learned and acute Chamier professes, he never saw, in any Interpreter of the place. Only he says, he found Justinian the Jesuit, distinguishing the word, to signify (as the simple word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does) sometimes Superstition and Impiety, and sometimes pious and religious worship, voluntarily undertaken; but yet, in this text, asserting it to signify Superstition, or as Ambrose saith, counterfeit Religion. But he shakes this distinction as groundless, as we shall hear anon. And now to the Doctors Arguments, to prove it taken in a good sense. First, But by his favor, Humility here, is not that true and laudable Christian virtue, but a mere counterfeit, a pretended Humility, fit for a pretended Willworship: For the first words, signifying only a show, not any reality of wisdom, exemplifies it, first by Willworship (which is affected Religion, having a show of piety, but not the substance) and then in an affected and counterfeit Humility. And the Doctor may remember, the same word is used in the 18. ver. of which he says hereafter, and why may not this be so too? being both alike pretended, in a Will-worship, not commanded by God, but invented and imposed by men; And sure such impious mistaken Humility, is no Christian, or laudable virtue: But of that place more anon.

2. The next Pretence for his good sense, is,

But to this we say again, there may be such a punishing, not sparing, or mortifying of the body, and selfdenyall, which hath a show of wisdom or piety, but is not only a counterfeit, but an impious mistaken mortification, or selfdenyall, viz. when this punishing of the body, is made a part of the worship of God. What thinks the Doctor of the Baalites lancing and cutting themselves? What of all the Romish ridiculous pennances, pilgrimages, fastings, &c. Does he not justify them, in all their Wilworships, and that from this text? have they not a great show of Wisdom, Piety, Devotion? of selfdenyall, and mortyfication of the body? are these acceptable to Christ: Are their selfpunishments, worthy to be numbered with that Revenge, or accounted among the effects of godly sorrow? If he say, not, I ask, what is it that makes them impious mistaken mortification, &c. He cannot say, because they held those forth as Commands of God, for that they deny: then it must be, because they make them worships of God; Voluntary worship, yet that the Doctor, endeavors to justify, by this text. I shut up this thus; These two virtues (as he calls them) are there so far from justifying Willworship, to which they are associated, that they fare the worse for it, and are made unchristian, and impious by its company. For though Humility and selfdenyall, in the commanded worship of God, be excellent virtues; yet when they precede, or accompany the constitution of false, that is devised Willworship, nothing is more impious and abhominable to God.

§. 12. The second reason of his good sense, is this,

Before I add the rest, I say to this: 1. This somewhat real matter of wisdom, in will-worship, in the judgment of most Interpreters, is nothing but a mere show and appearance, and indeed real folly and impiety, as was manifested on Sect. 7. And for the parallel place, the gloss corrupts the text; when he thus expounds it, For the Apostle opposing bodily exercise, to Godliness, which is profitable to all things, he means, that such bodily exercise, (abstinence from marriage, and meats) made a service or worship of God, is profitable for nothing, or rather (by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) is hurtful and abhominable; and so is the Willworship in this place. The Doctor seems to place the illness of those bodily exercises, in this; he means, I suppose, necessary, as commanded by God: But (say I) if they taught them (as they did, some of them) only as Commands of men, not necessary, no defaming marriage, &c. but as an acceptable worship of God; would the Doctor say, they were not hurtful, and abhominable, but profitable a little? I think not; or if he do, he justifies some Papists, who make them a special worship of God, not necessary, &c. But we said afore, the words here signify only a show of wisdom or piety. Then says he, the argument will be still of validity, if that Wilworship pass confessedly, either for foolish, or Let him ask all Interpreters, who render the words, how this can be: But I cannot but wonder at the Doctors question: For cannot a thing have a show of wisdom or piety, which is confessedly foolish or impious? and if so, may it not be so in respect of the Willworship in it? The Baalites lancing and cuttiug themselves in their devotions, had it not (to them at least) a show of piety, and yet that worship was confessedly impious? say the like of the Papists whipping themselves, and other ridiculous and heathenish pennances; have they not to them and others of their superstition, a great show of wisdom, and piety, and yet to us, are confessedly foolish and impious? Cannot, doth not the doctrine of False teachers hold out a show of wisdom and piety, in their worship, and yet to all orthodox known to be foolish and impious. Does not on the one side, the Wisdom of God in the Gospel, hold out a show of foolishness to natural wise men, and yet is the wisdom and power of God, to salvation? on the other, does not, is not the wisdom and piety of Hypocrites and Idolaters, folly and impiety to God. But (says the Dr.) This comparison is ill laid; For rage and lust are for kind confessedly wicked things. But worship may be true or false; and so as true worship may have a show of folly to natural men; so may false (and the refore impious ) worship have a show of wisdom and piety in it, to the same men: And the one, though it have a show of folly, yet may have none in it, but is the very wisdom of God: So the other, though it have a show of wisdom or piety in it, yet hath none, but is both folly and impiety. Let me put it a little more home to him: May there not be zeal (which may be nothing but rage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Saint James ) which may have a show of true zeal, and yet be nothing but rage and madness? must I needs To conclude may not the Devil himself transfer himself into (and so have a show of) an Angel of light? and must I suppose necessarily, that there is somewhat really of light or piety in him, or else cannot he have so much, as a show of them?

To conclude this argument, let the Doctor note it once for all, that the words are not;

For then, as wisdom was good, and taken in a good sense, so might the rest be taken; and the fault be, that they had only an appearance, not the truth or power; but the words are, And if they were faulty, because they had only a show of wisdom, they will be more faulty, that they had but a show of piety, or worship, or Humility. So that, the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. do no more enforce us to take it in a good sense, than, when we say, In both which sayings, love in the one, and devotion in the others, are taken in a good sense; but the ones traitorous kiss, and others bowing to Images, are not at all taken in any better sense for that show, or appearance of love and devotion; but are rather so much the worse. And this shall suffice for his second reason.

§. 13.

First this is well that the Greek Fathers agree with us (or we with them) in exposition of the first words. a show (not as he, somewhat real) of wisdom, or piety: Nay they expressly oppose against it, power and truth: and can that which hath neither power nor truth, in the worship of God, be taken in a good sense? And do not the Fathers imply as much: Chrysost. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : He seems to be Religious, but is not so: Oecumenious; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pretending (as Hypocrites ) Religion in worship, and is there any gooduesse in Hypocrisy? is not Religion itself of various senses? The simple word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , often signifies false Religion, and superstition, as well as true. But the composition, makes it worse, and alters the sense, because it adds the work of man's Will to Worship, which is abominable to God: Do not all Idolaters pretend wisdom, in their Inventions, Piety in their Devotions? and does not this pretence make it more odions to God, as taking upon them to be wiser than he, and more Devout than he requires? But why did not the Doctor tell us, how the Latin Fathers, and other later Interpreters render the word? Ambr. Simulatam Religionem, Jerome, Superstitionem, Theodoret, (a Greek Father) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pro • eo quodest proprium decretum introducunt, non legis scopum & institutum sequuntur. Vulgar latin (and all Popish Commentators take it thence) Superstitionem, Salmeron, & Estius, omnem affectatam & voluntariam Religionem significat, cum quis fingit sibi cultum ex cerebro suo, volens videri Religiosus. It signifies all affected and voluntary Religion, which a man forges out of his own brain, willing to seem Religious. I spare our own Divines. In a word, Estius gives this interpretation of the words, out of Augustine and Thomas: I leave all to the Doctors consideration.

§. 14. The fourth reason, because by this

&c. To which Interpretation of his, enough hath been spoken before, on Sect. 7. but we add. First, for my part, I have not observed amongst Interpreters, any such difficulty or obscurity of this text: I dare say, the Doctors exposition makes the greatest obscurity that ever I met with: They generally agree in the sense of the words, taking them in an ill sense; Only himself and some Papists, Bellarmine, and and some others, take them in a good sense.

2. That such Doctrines as he speaks of, are destructive to Christian Religion; is true, but not such only; nor are such only meant in his text, viz. outdated Judaical constitutions obtruded for Divine precepts, still obliging; but all Human Institutions of worship though never known before, are equally destructive to Religion; though they pretend not to be Divine precepts or prescriptions: The Apostle therefore brands them as destructive, because they are but Willworship, not because they are outdated, or Judaical: And those as well as these, however they may have a show of wisdom and piety, to carnal hearts, yet to understanding Christians, have not in any respect, piety in them, but are vain and sinful Inventions of men, that is, Willworship.

§. 15.

That he renders the word so, is no advantage to his cause, for the words may both signify the same thing, viz. Will-devised worship, in an ill sense. And though it be true, that in human Authors, the derivatives, and compounds of this word, do express the Freewillingnesse of the person; as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. yet that will not help the Doctor, who doth not understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with respect to the willingness of the person, in a commanded worship of God; but voluntary Worship, that is, Worship not Commanded by God, but offered to him by the Freewill of man, as we shall see anon. And it is as true; that though the word be taken in other Authors for voluntary worship, and be but once used in the Scripture: yet the spirit of God, the Master of all languages, does use words, (whither once or oftener) in a sense clearly different from other Authors, (and I think the Doctor makes use somewhere of such a Criticism ) As for instance, the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Scripture is taken for a vice, Eph. 5.4. which in Aristotle is used for a virtue. And the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is so taken in the best judgments. Nor is this, the notion of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , used by the 72. for Freewill-offerings, voluntary gifts, &c. as shall appear in a place more convenient.

§. 16.6.

Before we go any further, we must remember the distinction of voluntary worship, which the Doctor confounds; voluntary may be applied to worship in a double sense; First as it is a a modus, or manner of worship; that is, it is willingly performed, and so it is necessary, not arbitrary, attendant upon worship: or secondly, as voluntary implies the efficient cause constituting the worship, viz. the Will of man, as contradistinguished to the Will of God. In short, there is a vast difference, between voluntary worship, and Willworship; the one presupposes the Worship commanded by God, the other constitutes the worship, out of his own brain. Now its true, Worship of God commanded, is not ill, because it is spontaneous, that is willingly performed, but ill, if it be not spontaneous or voluntary; because in all service, God requires the Will or heart: But in worship devised by man, the Will bears all the blame, and the more voluntary, in that sense, the more abhominable: and herein, (contrary to what the Dr. here asserts) Again, when a man out of pious affection, shall do anything beside what God hath commanded (in such worship as is invented by himself or other men) this action is to be accounted, so much more (not commandable or acceptable, as the Doctor, but) odious and abhominable to God. But the Doctor adds; Yes, we say, there is an universal negative prohibition in the Scripture (beside special ones) in the second Commandment, forbidding all things, that is, all worship, and all degrees of that worship, besides what are particularly commanded. Hence it follows, that there is no general command or doctrine of the Gospel (which is another caution of the Doctors) to which such Willworship can hold conformity. Nor will it salve the matter, which he brings from an Heathen, or the Apocrypha, For this must be meant only of commanded worship, and the degrees or intention, of the Will in those services: therein, you cannot exceed the general command, to love the Lord (and so to serve him) with all thy heart and strength; But in Willworship, that is, of men's own devising, the first step in it, and least degree of it, is far from commendation, or acceptation; because you are so far from being obliged to to do it, that you are strictly obliged not to do it.

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

§. 18. 1.

But might not a man say as much for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 itself, as the Doctor says for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and bring the Doctor himself for his voucher? Does not he tell us, in his other Tract, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes is taken in a good sense. It seems then, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Superstition are both taken in a good sense, sometimes for Religion, and in a bad sense other times, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and they agree in an ill sense sometimes, and this helps not at all; to vindicate the word.

Secondly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it self is taken sometimes in an ill sense, (as the Doctor knows) as well as a good; why then may they not both equally signify Superstition? especially when applied to false or mendevised worship.

3. Superstition or Will-worship, is more general than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thats but one species of Superstition, if taken (as the word imports) for Daemonum cultus; But all false worship is Superstition: and the rather, because it is Spontaneous, voluntary, that is, Will-devised Worship. Lets try the next.

§. 19.

But the Doctor much mistakes the question himself, while he is laboring to show others mistakes.

For 1. it is not about a rite or circumstance or degree of worship commanded, (as Time, Place, Gesture, not prescribed) but of the Worship itself; and herein we say we are equal with the Jews, and all the people of the world; we may not vary from the prescription on the mount, in the second Commandment, to constitute any part of worship; but what we have the authority of Christ for, in the New Testament. And we do say, and that truly,

And we have for our ground, both the second Commandment in the old, and this text (beside others) in the New Testament to justify our assertion.

2. That saying of the Doctor,

is most unsound; For in worship, it will not justify a man, that it is not prohibited (in particular) but rather, it is condemned, because it is not commanded; though all Willworship (in our sense) is prohibited, as we often said. As for his gloss upon the words of Photios, I say little; I only note, that he seems to make it a fault, to sit at the readding of the Gospel, which the Ecclesiastical Canons did not command; and yet makes it no fault, to add a Willworship of a man's own, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Divine lawdoth forbid.

§. 20.

The distance pretended between them, is so little, that they may easily be reconciled; That respecting a new devised worship only, and this the reviving of an old & outdated worship, as we shall see. I only observe what Maimonides observed, that is, pleasing and acceptable unto God. This is exemplified abundantly in the Church of Rome, whose Superstitions are grounded upon this, that they are very pleasing to God; let the Dr. take heed, he do not justify, or imitate them.

21. But he goes about to make good this distance between the verses; only he forbears not, to weaken his following proofs by the Interpretation of Clem. Alex. who compounding these verses, reads thus.

and in neglecting of the body, &c. and makes it very certain, that he understood them both as one, and very suspicious, that they are at no such distance, as the Doctor pretends.

§. 22. You must (says he) observe these two things. 1.

viz. pleasing himself in worshiping But this comes to nothing; for 1. the sense is the same, whither the words be joined, or parted: a voluntary humility, as the ground of that worship of Angels: They (good men) were so modest and humble, they would not rush upon God immediately (though he Command it, and so it was gross pride, masked with humility) but they would go by Angels, as Media tours: Is not this the very plea of Papists at this day, for their, Invocation of Angels and Saints?

2. Take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asunder, and for pleasing or delighting, or proud of a feigned Humility: Did not these false teachers do the same? were they not much pleased, delighted, proud of this new-old-revived worship, as applauding their own wisdom in the Invention of this worship, and their Humility, and devotion, in their abstinence from such meats, &c. Did not Jeroboam (think you) much please himself, and pride himself, in his politick Religion of the Golden Calves? Are not all Superstitious and Idolatrous worshipers, delighted with their Willworship, especially the first Devisers of it? insulting not over others only, as more Religions then they.

But also over God himself, as making him beholden to them, by going beyond what he commands?

3. Why may not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Composition, signify the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , asunder? self-pleasing worship or Religion; His Clemens, joins them together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; will worship of Humility. That is observable, which Estius notes, on the place, the 18. verse; that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is referred to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also; volens in humilitate, i. affectans humilitatem, & volens in Religion Angelorum, 1. affectans, &c. a voluntary humility, that is, affecting humility and a voluntary worshiping of Angels, that is, affecting that worship: For this the Apostle signifies, in the 23. ver. by composition of the words, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : And it is as if he had said, let no man beguile you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : In Will-humility and will-worship of Angels; which the Doctor allows us to call,

Sect. 23. and Sect. 20. That crime of Superstition. And so in this ver. 23. we may apply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to all the 3. Willworship, Will-Humility and Wilpunishing of the body: And tis very reasonable ro conceive, that though it was praeter usum Greci sermonis, so to place the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet the Spirit of God so directed Saint Paul; to separate the words in the 18. verse, and to join them in the 23. on purpose, that he might teach us, not only (what Estius observes) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 18. ver. was to be referred to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also; but to teach us also, how to understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 23. ver. viz. for Worship affected, and sinful; and humility affected, &c. as well as in the 18. verse:: that is, in the Doctors own words,

§. 23. But he adds the second observation,

approved by a general command, is far enough from having any tincture of ill in it, But 1. its true, the matter of these two worships differ, considered in themselves, but they differ not at all, in the unlawfullness, one being more expressly forbidden in the first Commandment, the other by consequence, or more generally in the second. It is no more lawful, to revive a Worship, which God hath laid aside, than it is to begin a worship, which God never Commanded or forbad: 2. The matter of this worship in the 23. verse, was about meats which God had given precepts of before, but now voided: the matter was in it self lawful: they did but worship God in a lawful matter, why doth the Apostle blame them for this? (as he doth) if the Doctors assertion be true, It will not help him to say, for let the matter be never so lawful, yet in Willworship it cannot have any general precept to approve it, but rather hath general and particular precepts to forbid and condemn it. The Doctor still deludes us, by the sense of voluntary worship; which if he take for willingness in commanded worship, we shall not contend with him; but if for worship invented and constituted by the will of man, (as he does) not only we, but God himself observes it.

§. 24.

This is generally taken in an ill notion, yet finds a patron of the Doctor, to defend, or palliate it: I shall not much labor about it; but truly, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hear so ill, the addition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 superfluous, to it, will make it here worse. Lets hear what he says for it.

§. 25.1.

To this I say; The superfluity of them consisted not only, in the number, burden, quality, of them; but even in the voluntary constitution of them, as worship of God; For so our Savior charges them, " In vain do they worship me, &c. and thats Superfluous worship: And the uncommandednesse (if there were nothing else) in a matter of worship, turns them into ill, and abhominable. For this is the sum of the second Commandment, and consequently, all uncommanded worship is superfluous, vain and sinful; as hath oft been said.

§. 26. "But secondly he says,

&c. who would think the Pharisees should find an advocate, being such notorious Hypocrites? The very name of their Religion, argues them proud, vain, superfluous worshipers, both for number, and burden of their ridiculous ceremonies, and all of their own devising, as parts of worship; and yet the word cannot be yielded to be taken in an ill notion: Epiphan: is describing the Heresy of the Pharisees (awing others) and calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as offending, both in Willworship of their own devising, and also in the abundance and superfluity of them; and yet the word hath no ill notion: let him enjoy his own sense of it: Sure, our Savior would not have condemned them so oft, so sharply, for both these, if the words might have had a good sense or notion.

§. 27.

This is another of the Doctors mistakes. Their main crime was that, which was the occasion of that despising of other men, which was their Hypocrisy, which was cloaked with their mancle of Devotion, in the Superfluity and Supererogation of their Traditions, and Willworship, which making them proud (as all Willworshipers are, with a show of wisdom) they despised others, whom they thought less godly than themselves: Their strictness in some particulars, neglected by others, was not so much in moralls, as in ceremonialls of their own devising, in washings and Fastings, and placing the worship of God in them: as Papists do, and therefore the Doctor mistakes, when he applies that Scripture to these, " these things ought you to have done, for there it meant of things commanded by God; but then their fault was, that they were exact in the least commands, and loose in far greater matters: Or if they ought to have done their own Traditions, why does our Savior so bewoe them, so often, for doing of them? And yet the Doctor says, Their Superlative strictness consisted chiefly in the observation of their own Traditions, even to the avoiding of the Commandments of God by them, and does this leave no blemish upon them? I say no more, let him consider it.

§. 28. His third answer for the Pharisees is;

&c. Its likely to be so: But when he says, these were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which he renders, I know not what he means: for the word signifies only, such as were devoted voluntarily, or (as our English Translation reads it) wellminded to the Law that is the Law of God: But I think his intention is, to fetch hence a color for the Pharisees and his own voluntary worship: whereas the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies only the freeness or willingness of the Soul, in the prescribed worship of God: For all was to be voluntary, and willing service; and God's people, a willing people. Ps. 110, Now in this sense the Karaej, were also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wellminded, or voluntarily devoted to the Law: But this word, differs much from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a will-worshiper, which signifies rather (as we have proved) a Deviser of worship, than one voluntary in gods prescribed worship: Or if he take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for those Freewill offerings allowed in the Law, as the 70. render the word: yet in this sense, the Karaej, I doubt not; were as well devoted, and as wellminded to the Law, as the Hasidaej: The difference then between them, was rather in this, that the one, in their worship, kept close to the Rules of the Law; the others would Supererogate and devise worship, above or beside the Law: and so the Doctor, I think, intends it; Now I believe, our Savior would not have blamed the Pharisees for their Freewill offerings, or voluntary performances in that sense, because the Law allowed and approved them: but he blames them, for their Traditions, their voluntary worship devised by themselves; which the Doctor calls, their voluntary performances above the Law. And therefore, however Scaliger may justify the Karaei for doing only what was commanded of them. He can never justify the Hasidaei for doing more (in the worship of God) than was commanded them, unless he will condemn our Savior for condemning them: For the rest of the discourse in this Section, I shall only note the progress of Willworship. At first the Hasidaei, (afterwards Pharisees ) were only men devoted, or well minded to the Law, it seems, in words of Charity; Afterwards, they (finding applanse from men) they began to perform some voluntary worship, which the Law required not. Then at last, their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Scaliger says) came to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their voluntary worship came to be necessary, and formed into precepts; Then from pious men (The sidem ) they became Dogmatizers, laying obligations upon all to do as they did; and not being obeyed, discriminated themselves from all others, as the only obedient servants of God; and so called themselves Pharisees, &c. The application is very easy, and very observable in the new Pharisees of Rome, and all Superstitious Willworshipers, as shall be exemplified in Hypothesi, in another place. Yet the Doctor thinks by this means to vindicate the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from any ill sense; as they that offended not in the Wilworship, but in Dogmatizing; which yet is not imported in the word; and he does indeed condemn it; But I desire to know whether Willworship, I mean, devised worship, in any one man, be not sinful, though he never come to Dogmatize, or lay obligations upon others, to do as he does? But the mischief is, that Willworship, if not ever, yet commonly, ends in Dogmatizing: especially in men, of place, and piety, and learning, as is evident in the Histories of the Church, in all ages and places.

§. 29, And now we are come to the third part of his undertaking,

to which he hath often paralleled his voluntary Worship, by him understood in this text, sect. 9. &c. wherein he propounds three observations.

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

1. In regard of the Freewillingnesse of the mind of the offerer; Exod. 35.29.

&c. But this Willingnesse of the person, was required, in the most necessary commanded worship, yea every act of obedience to God, in both Tables, is to be done most willingly, by that general Law, And in this sense, the Offering or worship is presupposed to be commanded by God: This not here meant.

2. With respect to some Liberty or free choice, left to the Will of the offerer, as standing in contradiction to such offerings or worship, as they were bound to, either by Law, or vow, as Sigonius well observes. (Though there was not so great a difference between a vow, and a Freewilloffering, but that, an offering by vow, might be called a Freewilloffering, in this sense, that it was free to vow, or not to vow; though it was not free to pay, or not to pay it; And the same may be said of a Freewilloffering that it was not free t • offer it or not, when once it was promised, though it was free to promise or not to promise it: The difference seems only gradual, a vow being a more solemn promise, and a Freewilloffering, voluntarily promised, (as the Hebrews express it) being a less solemn vow. But this by the way) The Liberty left to the offerer, was of 2, sorts.

1. Libertas specificationis (as they call it) when it was left to his choice, what he would offer of several things allowed by the Law: Not an unlimited liberty, to offer what kind of things he would, a Bear, or a Lyon, of beasts, or a Vulture or Eagle of Fowls; But only someone or other of those three kinds of beasts. Beeves, Goats, Sheep, or of those two kind of fowls prescribed by the Law, Pigeons, or Turtles: (which choice, was allowed in other sorts of offerings, as well as, in those that were properly called Freewillofferings, which is observable.) And this Liberty was not (I say) unbounded, but much limited, as in these particulars.

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

2. There was a general Law, that the Freest offerings, were to be, according to the measure of God's blessing, Deut, 16.10. whence it had been a sin for any Israelite, whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a pair of Pigeons instead of a Bullock, upon his own mere pleasure. And this law, is renewed in the Gospel, 1 Cor. 16.2.

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

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

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

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

1.

To which we say, 1. That they were parts of the worship of God, in those times, is true, not (or not only) because they were avowed by the general precepts, which respected that worship; but rather, because they were allowed by special Proviso's of God himself. For, I ask; If God had not declared his allowance (befides his directions and regulations) of them, whither it had been lawful for the Jews, to have offered them or no? I believe not, as shall be shown anon: 2. I desire it may be observed, that those voluntary oblations, were a part of God's worship: so, by proportion, must his volunluntary oblations in the Gospel, be accounted a part of worship, not rites, or degrees, or circumstances of worship: Let it be remembered against anon.

2.

This is also true in part, they had no particular command, but they had a special allowance of God, which was as good, and equivalent to a command, though not to necessitate the doing, yet to authorize them being done: otherwise men were at liberty; But why doth, he except a vow? I conceive, because if a man had vowed, it was now necessary for him to perform it; but so, if he had devoted a freewill offering, it was not free for him, to withhold it: There is a Law, Levite. 27.13. that if he would offer to change his oblation, he must add a sift part more to it.

3.

They were to be offered, because allowed, and because allowed, therefore accepted, not because they were voluntary only. Bur what will the Doctor infer from all this? This inference, I fear, hath toomuch of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spoken of in the text, a show of Wisdom, but neither substance, power, nor truth, in it: For this plausible argument hath deceived Papists, into an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an abundant superfluity of will-worship, it was so in the old Testt: therefore it may be so in the New: There was an High Priest over all, ergo there must be an universal B. now: They had their sacrifices then, so must the Church now; In a word, thus Bellarm argues, in a case near ours, if not the same; And this seems reasonable to the Doctor in the present case: When as Divines resolve against them, 1. And conclude the contrary, it rather follows, they are not parts of worship now; because that Levitical worship is abolished, therefore we must have a certain and special word in the New Testament, to make anything a part of worship, whence his second inference is like the former; He may, we grant, be so called, a Will-worshiper, not a God-worshiper; and the oblation, Willworship (in an ill sense) not a worship of God; as wanting Truth, command, or allowance of the New Testament, which those had in the Old: Yet, we shall not stick to grant, For this first is certain, that no worship (mark that, we speak of Worship ) is acceptable to Christ, which he hath not commanded; either in particular, or by general allowance. 2. Our question is, not about circumstances, of time, place, or degree, of worship commanded; but about voluntary worship (as he calls it Willworship, (as we) devised by men themselves. Now his Instances will be easily answered.

§. 30.

1 King. 8.18. This is one of Bellarmine's arguments, for their Religious vows; and its fully answered by learned Chamier thus: 1. This was in the time of the Law or before Christ; but the times of the Gospel give no such allowance; Freewill-offerings were then allowed, it appears not, they are so now: 2. God doth not absolutely deny, that he had Commanded, but says, he had not Commanded it to David, or any before him, not because he would not have it done, but because not yet, and therefore foretells that Solomon should build it. 3. The house that David would build, was not to be a part of worship properly, but by accident, as it serves for the Commodity and convenience of the worshipers: no more than the House of Obededom, or the place where David settled the Ark and Tabernacle before, was a part of worship, or our Churches now; God had said by Moses, that he would choose a place for himself to dwell in; and then, when he had chosen and sanctified it, it was a part of that legal worship: David had read this, and thought, that time was now at hand, he therefore prepares materials for the House; but could not make it a part of worship, without God's command: and then it is nothing to our present question. It was only a circumstance of worship, not any part of worship.

2. The instance of Saint Paul,

is as little to the purpose, if not less; for it is not in a matter of Worship, to call it a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a free will offering, when it was a due debt: For so Chamier answers Bellarm. objecting this place for works of counsails, as they call them: And he proves it by a distinstion, that he did that which was above or beside the general command, or allowance, but not above what he was bound to do, by a special call, from the circumstance of time and place: for he was bound, not only to Preach the Gospel, but also to take heed that he did nothing to hinder the success: which he confirms from the words of the Apostle there, 1 Cor. 9.18. But to abuse his power, is to sin: which he had done, if he had received his hire to the hindering of the Gospel. His glorying and boasting therefore, was, in respect to the general command, not to the special occasion: It was therefore no Freewill offering.

§. 31. The like may be answered for the other instance:

Some answer, this was an Instinct or Heroicall motion of the Spirit, (which the Doctor discourses against, Sect. 35. &c.) but we need not that help, It is enough to answer as before; By the general allowance; Paul might have fled, (for there is no command, whereby Preachers are bound, to be bound, beaten, stoned ) but yet, if he should have refused to suffer with the retarding of the Gospel, he had surely sinned, and so, this was no Freewilloffering, neither.

§. 32. The next of works of mercy,

May be answered by what is said afore in part, viz. that it is not the question, which is, of worship, not of actions of civil life: But we add;

1. It may be said, that the question is not of the degree of an Act of obedience, commanded, as Almsegiving is, but of the Act itself, if not commanded now allowed in special, or in general.

2. The Doctor himself confesses

But then, may it not be said, there is some middle rule, that binds men, from both the excess and the defect? which if it be resolved on, there is a debt, and no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no Freewill offering: Besides, in his section, the Doctor says, True, there was a proportion set, by a special Law, (least men should give nothing) but there was also a general Law, to give according to God's prospering of them, and their ability; as 1 Cor. 16.2. cited by the Doctor, as an apointment of Saint Paul, and so obliging, to which, if we add, the circumstance of time and place, and persons, in regard of Necessities of the poor; there will be little cause to think or boast of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Freewill offering, but it may prove a due debt, and, and sin, if it be not done.

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

And whereas the Doctor says, Sect. 34. concerning frequent prayer (as 7. times a day, &c. )

If he mean it, of the particular number, of seven times a day, its true: but if in general, of frequent prayer, and that every day, it is against the very scope of the text, pray continually: and so will prove a debt, and not a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Freewill offering. Himself seems to expound it, by twice a day, morning and evening, at least, and says that But I think, the sense of the precept, pray continually, hath respect to the frequent necessities and occasions of men, every day, and binds men to pray so oft as need shall be, with ejaculatory prayer at least; and then again, it is a debt, and no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Nedabah, no voluntary oblation.

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

1.

) The difference between a Precept, and a Grace, is granted; but that a Grace should not oblige, unless the matter be commanded him, by some other command, is not true. For Grace given, being a Talent, is given on purpose to improve, as well as a precept; This is clear as in 1 Cor. 12.7. So in the Parable of the Talents, the scope whereof is, though he lay no command particularly upon him: And the not using of it, is punished severely: Take him, and cast him, &c. for he acknowledgeth his Lord did expect the improvement; I knew, &c. whats the second difference?

2.

&c. This is strange Divinity: Does God give Grace only to strengthen and incline, and leave men free to use it, or not use it? so grace might be given in vain: But does not Saint Math. say, for not using his Talent? and is he not threatened with loss of his Talent, for not using it? and is not that a punishment for some sin? yes, True, but had here been no such particular precept, yet the Gift itself implied that duty of employment, and therefore Matthew leaves that out; And there he acknowledges presently, That's true, say I, when he gives any grace, (though he say nothing) even by the Law of Creation, whereby the rational Creature is bound to be subservient to the glory of his Creator: But this last grant, he in a manner, takes away again in the next words; But surely, as grace itself, so any measure or degree of grace (being a Talent also) requires a proportionable return, to that degree.

The Lord, in the parable expected an increase of of one Talent, for his one Talent, as well as two, for two, and five for five; and he was punished as well for not improving his one, to two, as for bringing in no increase; And if he that had received five Talents, had brought in the increase but of two, I believe he had heard of it from his Lord, and been Chidden, if not punished for it. Though it be true also, that there is no Obligation ad semper, yet semper, as opportunity is offered; Gal. 6.10. As, as long, as much, while we have opportunity, lets do good, &c. and so the degree of the grace, binds to a gradual improvement:

is express Scripture; And this expression of the Doctor, for kind, not to the degree of Grace received Savours too much of the Romish gloss, to say no more.

§. 40.41. Object. Prudence will require us to do that which is fittest to be done, and so nothing is free, &c. He answers,

&c. Truly every man is bound to be prudent, to that degree of prudence; which he lost by sin; and every man is bound to be pious, in the highest degree; the Law requires perfection of holiness, (say we) and the Gospel requires yet Greater perfection, (says he; pract. catech. 2 ^d . Edit. p. 94, 95.) and every man is bound to be merciful to his ability, as our Heavenly Father is merciful, (which sure is the highest degree ) though every man be not bound to the same degree, of mercy, with other men; because every man hath not, either the same measure, of abilities, or the same opportunities. But these supposed, as a man in extreme need, and my abilities considered, I am bound to give so much as will supply his need; and to give less, were neither, prudent, nor pious, what ever it were to give more

§. 42. And here he confesses,

but yet would evade the decision of the just proportion, two ways.

1.

To which I say, Virtue (and Charity is such a virtue) consists in a middle point between two extremes; therefore, if it swerve from that point to either extreme, it is more or less a fault, though not observed, perhaps not observable by men, yet justly punishable, by a righteous God. And in strict and rigorous Justice, in such deviations, a man will be found neither merciful, nor prudent, but he says,

2.

Yes, Prudence itself being a virtue, in our created nature; then certainly it commanded, and obliged to do what was fittest; and so it doth still; that what is short of the Rule, by our imprudence, is a fault, though pardonable by Grace.

Sect. 43.44. Another objection he starts, from hence.

This seems at first sight, to touch upon the mercenary, or meritorious way of Romanists; and we should not have framed such an objection: For there being a twofold perfection, the one of Grace, or holiness, the other of Glory; true Prudence looks first at the perfection of Holiness, and by the by, or secondarily at the perfection of Glory: leaving that to God; though God is pleased to give us this help to provoke us to perfection of holiness. Now when prudence looks first and primarily at perfection of Glory, it seems misplaced. For true Prudence should first look at the command of God, and the beauty of Holiness, and should advise us, to seek that first, and for it self: Not to look at Glory, to make us Holy, but at Holiness to make us glorious: And this is true prudence indeed, which advises a man to do the best to arrive at the perfection of Grace, upon the command of God, &c. But let us consider his answers.

1.

&c. What Prudence doth he mean? If it be a carnal Prudence (for it is no better) advising only, or first, to look at the perfection of Glory, that indeed does not lay any obligation upon us. But if it be true divine Prudence, looking at the perfection of Virtue, required by the commands of God, it doth lay strong obligations upon us; so as if we obey it not it is sinful. Nor does it thereby cease to be prudential, because of that command, which makes it necessary, but is prudentially necessary.

2. He says,

&c. What perfection does he mean will be dangerous to undertake as a steep way, &c.? The perfection of Virtue, or Holiness required in the Commandments of Law, and Gospel? Sure that, though it be steep and high, yet it is no dangerous way at all; but the most safe, peaceable, and easiest way, if the Word may be believed. But I guess by that phrase, that he means it of the Romish caelibate, * or Virginity, or Martyrdom, the rather because he adds, &c. That is, every man hath not that gift, and for him to undertake that way (of perfection ) may be dangerous, and precipitious indeed. Now to undertake the way of perfection in Holiness, cannot be dangerous to any, but is the duty of all, and every man may receive it, that in sincerity looks after it, at least to acceptation. And then that which he adds is as strange: I pray does the precept of God interpose at any time, or (as he speaks) trase us in the way of perfection in Holiness? Do God's precepts cross one another in that way of perfection? Or rather is not perfect obedience to the precepts of God holiness and perfection itself? Does God's precept make it, unlawful for us to aspire to the most perfect state, which calls us to it? What strange Divinity is this! But hear him speak, and explain himself. By this its evident, he means not the perfection of Holines according to the Commandments of God, but a conceited perfection of martyrdom as Papists do: But does God call all men, at all times to martyrdom? Is there any command for all men to be Martyrs? Yet there is a command for all men to obey God, to be perfectly holy; and no command of God interposes, or trases us in this: Yea if a man, ambitious of Martyrdom (his highest perfection ) should with neglect of obedience to a command of God, in discharge, but of a duty of his calling, aspire to Martyrdom, he would scarce deserve the name of a Martyr, but of something else which I will not name. The Providence of God indeed may interpose and trase us, (by denying us abilities to do more good, or leaving corruptions to buffet us, that we cannot do the good we would (as Paul complains ) for reasons best known to himself. But then, who knows not, And his reward (for ought we know) may be accordingly; equal with those that have more abilities and opportunities of doing good, or suffering ill for Christ. Any man, all men, are always bound to aspire to the perfection of Holiness, not to the perfecto n of Martyrdom. And now we go on.

§. 46.

We shall grant him this, and yet deny his voluntary oblations still: For we say, there are degrees of, or rather to perfection here; upon condition, that he will grant, that every degree, even the highest, is required by the Law of God, and what is short of the highest degree, is so far culpable; and then it will follow, that there can be no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , no voluntary oblation. Let him hear St. Jerome speak our sense in this, It is spoken in general of the Love of God and man, but easily applied to Charity strictly so called. But the Doctor goes on. Whether he be of their mind who hold perfection possible in this life, I cannot say; but this I can say, he speaks contradictions; for perfection admits of no degrees or growth; but rather degrees and growth in Grace (which are oft commanded) argue there is no perfection in this life. The Doctor goes on still. This is strong and strange confidence. For first, doth not the Law itself (still in force under the Gospel) require perfect obedience of Christians? Did it not ever do so, as the eternal Rule of righteousness, and ever will? All Orthodox Divines have ever thought so, and maintained it against the Church of Rome. Only, the Doctor, I find, is of the same judgment with them of Rome, and sticks not to charge the Law, before Christ, with Imperfection. Hear his words, Pract. Catech. pag. 94. 2 Edit. Viderit ipse.

But secondly, doth not the Gospel also call for the perfection of the Law? Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, are the words of Christ himself. But least he should say, as here sect. 46. by perfection there, is meant mercifulness (though that will little advantage him) what says he to that place of the Gospel, Be ye holy, as he is holy? 1 Pet. 1.15, 16. Which is taken out of the Law, Levi. 11.44. &c. Did God then or the Gospel now, call men to an Imperfect Holiness and set God for their pattern? But doth not the Doctor himself say,

in his Catech: supra pag. 93. and to set it higher, than before? And yet is he certain and confident, And is not that perfection, the perfection of the Law still, though it be required by the Gospel? Doth not the Gospel call for the perfection of the Law, upon new motives, of the Covenant of Grace, of the merits and death of Christ? upon indeed better terms; as mediating, that if we do (as we do) fall short of that perfection, yet we shall be pardoned all our failings.

And thirdly, I ask, what it is, that makes the burden of Christ, (requiring the same, (the Doctor says, greater) perfection of the Law)

let the Doctor answer the question himself, in his Catech. p. 95. It was was not then the lightness of the burden, that he required not perfect Holiness under the Gospel (for that he does 2 Cor. 7.1.) but that, if by repentance, faith and love, we sincerely endeavor after perfection, first our failings shall be pardond, 2. and our weak works accepted, through Christ our mediator. But still perfection, (though not acquirable here) is under Evangelical precept.

§. 47. Whence it is apparent, that that so plausible assertion (as the Doctor calls i • )

is not (as he) disernibly false; but visibly true; For if the Law (and Gospel also) require perfection of obedience, in every Commandment, then it bends every man to do that which is best: And his arguments against it, are little worth: 1. For the Testimony of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.28. For 1. well and better there, do not refer to moral goodness but Worldly good, in regard of the prevention of troubles, in those afflicted, and persecuting times: Marriage is, in it self, a thing indifferent, and so it may be good for some to marry, and better for others not to marry.

2. The matter is, how the parties are disposed; If a man have not the gift of continence, it is not only good, but necessary for him to marry, rather than to burn: and here it cannot be said,

If a man had the gift of continency, is was better, (in those times, for the present distress, ver. 26.) not to marry, but still with respect to Worldly, not moral good. 2. His other argument is as weak; I hope the Doctor will not deny, but works done by faith are Good; and yet, that they are not perfect in this life, that is, come short of what we are bound to do, if not by the Law, yet by the Gospel; will he now say, they are evil? They are called good, by the indulgence, and acceptance of God, in Christ; but not strictly or perfectly good: He knows who said it. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esse convincitur, si district judicetur.

§. 48. The next Objection raised by him, helps to confirm the former answer; The Law is,

which implies the utmost endeavor, to perfection, in all our obedience, He answers, But we say, 1. That both these are noted & required, we grant but deny that only these are required, for the Law required perfect love. ( John 4.18. perfect love, casteth out fear ) such as was in Adam in innocence; but that is not acquirable in this life: 2. If he will but grant, that whatever comes short of that perfection, needs (and by grace shall find) a pardon, and be accepted; we contend no farther. For let it be supposed, yea granted, that sincere love, is capable of degrees, whither in the same man, at several times, or two men at the same time, and so both obey the precept; yet those degrees, and growth of love, do argue love not to be perfect (and so not strictly answerable to the Law) & so far faulty, in vitio, as Jerome said, above.

But what shall we say to that Instance of Christ himself;

But we say to this, This example of Christ, will not be appliable to men. For Christ was above the Law; and did more then the Law required, and did supererogate in many his actions, and passions; and so in the degree of affection in prayer, if not in the prayer itself: But men are so far from Supererogating by any service, prayer, or the like; that they fall many degrees short of what is required, and due from them, and so no room left for freewill-offerings, as his voluntary oblations. Yet thus much that example holds forth, that greater pressures and necessities, call for enlargement of affections not as voluntary oblations, but as duties.

§. 50. &c. And this makes way for another, and the last objection;

The Doctor answers.

1.

But is not this new distinction, sometimes coincident? For he that doth somewhat not commanded; does also something more, than is commanded; though he hath not in other things, done all that is commanded; and so to do more than is commanded, does not suppose, he hath done all that is commanded, nor do the Romanists suppose that, to their supererogation: so this is nothing.

2. He adds therefore;

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

First, with respect to the Law itself, when men think they have done more than the Law required, which makes them not Supererogatorie, but Derogatory, from the perfection of the Law of God, and lays imperfection upon it, (as the Doctor hath plainly done above.) 2. With respect had to other men, men, who attain not to that perfection (as they call it) to do something more than commanded; as that Pharisee, that said (with scorn and pride enough) " I am not as other men, I fast twice a week. And this was the note of discrimination, between the Hasidaej, and the Haraej, as we heard above. 3. With respect to the over-pleasing and acceptance of God: They that think that they can do something not commanded, do think, and expect to find more, and greater acceptance from God, than they themselves or others do, for doing only what is commanded: Papists do indeed, think they can merit wich God by such works, for themselves ond others: Ours are not come so far yet, but they do think to find (or procure) more acceptance for their voluntary oblations here, and if not glory itself, yet a greater reward, and greater glory hereafter for such works. For more acceptance the Doctor speaks expressly; Sect. 16.

And elsewhere, What exceptions may be made to this, see above at Sect. 16. and add, If the Doctor should mean it of voluntariness in a prescribed worship of God, it is not to the purpose; for even the highest voluntariness, is there required. If he mean it of a voluntary, will devised worship, I have said, and say again, As for the other, that by their voluntary oblations, they do think and expect to find greater glory, and reward hereafter, the Doctor is not so express; Yet when he makes it Sect. he comes very near to think, that voluntary oblations, such as voluntary Martyrdom, may procure, greater reward, than commanded worship. To draw to a conclusion of all; when the Doctor says, This may be true in the Doctrine; but in the Practice, I fear it tends to pride, and scorn, to teach men, We have too much experience of the success, of such Doctrine, not only in the old Hasidaej, and later Pharisees, but palpably in the Church of Rome, at this day; and our own late Superstititious Willworshipers, and Formalists, who did overlook others (who like the Karaeans, kept close to the Rule of the word, for their worship ) with abundance of contempt and insolence; as all that knew the times, can sufficiently testify.

OF CHRISTMAS, AND other FESTIVALS of the CHURCH.

Section 1.

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

1. That the custom which is pleaded for, be brought into the Church by the Apostles themselves, for Gospel worship: For he says,

The Gospel Churches by us planted.

2. That the custom pleaded be grounded truly (if not so clearly) upon the Word of God: For this is no good argument against a rational Disputant.

But this is thought a good inference: And upon these considerations fiderations the Doctor hath consulted ill to his own cause, to produce this Text for his Festival: For he dare not say it was instituted by the Apostles, nor can prove it was observed by the prime, and purest Church (though he oft assert it) then the inference is strong against him. It matters not then what the ancient usage of the Church of England hath been; if it began not with the Apostles in the first Churches: Which, of the Feast of Christ's Nativitie, cannot, I think, be proved; I am sure is not performed by the learned Doctor. Nor yet that the Church of England was extant in the Apostles times; or if it were, that this custom of Christmas was from the beginning of the plantation of the Gospel amongst us, which yet he undertakes to manifest.

§. 2. The latter he first begins with: And that it is thus ancient he will prove,

But this is no way constringent: For they might be added (together with the Festival itself) some good while after the first conversion, of some part of this Island, the better to win the rest to a liking of Christian Religion, by conforming to them in celebration of Festivals; as the like was done to win the Jews in observing the old Sabbath, Pentecost, &c. And this Festival being substituted instead of the old Saturnalia, in the same Month (as is confessed by many, and the Doctor himself) no marvel if some heathen usages stuck close to it, and could not since be gotten out: For those heathen usages continued by the ruder multitude (and others too) though they have been yet do they fully hold out these two things;

1.

2.

Seeing after so long a time as fifteen, or sixteen hundred years continuance (as the Dr. thinks they still attend the Festival; people being more tenacious of customs, received by the Tradition of their Fathers, then of the very Institutions of God.

§. 3.4. For the former, that the conversion of England was early, is very likely, but not so early, as is pretended, but not proved: For as the Histories and Monuments are very obscure and doubtful, differing much one from another; so the Doctor himself is very uncertain, where to place the beginning, or who was the Instrument of our conversion.

Faine would he have us think it was by some Apostle, if he knew how to make it out. Some affirm it was Simon Zealots, Sect. 6. But he slurs his Author thus: He might have said, Nothing worth, being contradicted by so many others, and by the Doctor himself, by and by. Yet it might be near the Apostles times by some Apostolical men; some say for so. Mr. Camden reports (from as ancient Records, and credible as any we have; for we have none very ancient or very credible, Belike Crescens sent him hither to convert she Britain's; if he did not come, and do it himself: For so the Doctor would have it, and proves it out of Scripture, 2 Tim. 4.10. Crescens ( sent by St. Paul was gone into Galatia; where Galatia may signify France, as some Authors take it, and the Doctor is willing to believe it: For presently (though others contradict) he takes it for granted, when he says, Its easy to believe, that Crescens, if he were in France, might quickly step over into Engl. but the former is yet to prove: For the Doctor knows very well, that very learned men deny, that Galatia was there taken for France; but for a part of Asia, which is far enough from England. Yea they demonstrate it (as they think) that it was not meant of France; for which I refer him to Estius on the place, 2 Tim. 4.10. However, whether Crescens were ever in France or no, sure he was not in England to convert the Nation. Hear the Doctors own words: "This (which he had said before) The Affirmation of Gildas, that this was in Tiberius 's Raign, was mere Tradition, and far from probability: For then England should be converted, within four years after Christ's death; In the 18. of Tiberius, our Lord suffered, and Tiberius reigned but 22. in all: No Authors of any credit, lay it so high. As for Tertullian and Origen; they lived both in the third Century, above 200. years after Christ, And its very likely, Christianity was planted here, in some parts, some time before them. But its very observable, that neither of those Ancients, nor any before them, in all their writings, ever mention the Feast of the Nativity, as then in observation, though they often speak of other usages of the Church, before, and in their times. The most probable opinion is, that, though some persons, of this, as of most Nations, were converted early to the Faith, yet the Nation, or any considerable part of it, was not converted till King Lucius his time, (about the year of Christ, 180.) the first Christian King, in the whole world, (which is a great honor to our Nation.) This was done (say Historians ) in the time of Eleutherius, then Bishop of Rome, who lived towards the end of the second Century. And his Epistle to King Lucius (if that be Authentic, for the Doctor doubts it, and well he may, if he do but remember what a learned Historian says) doth not say, that Britain, had long ago (before Lucius his time) received the Faith, but rather, nuper, lately; and so it was in the Latin, in the Doctors Margine, but wisely left out in the English; which why it was done, let others judge. Historians say, that King Lucius, desired of Eleutherius, that he and his people, might have some sent to baptize them; who accordingly, sent Fugatius and Damianus. Now if Christianity, had been planted here from the Apostles times, or by Apostolical men, its not probable, that they left no Presbyters here to baptize, but that they must send to Rome for such: which would give Romanists a fairer plea, to subject England to Rome; then that of Augustine the Monk; which the Doctor disputes so much against hereafter.

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

§. 6.

to the main question, concerning the first Plantation of the Gospel here, by the Apostles, &c. or the Antiquity of the Festival, pleaded for. It may indeed argue, that England did not receive Christianity first from Rome, in Augustine's time; but does not prove, that those that planted Christianity here, For the Eastern Christians commonly kept it so, but not in the Apostles times. Which the Doctor takes for granted; but is denied him: and that upon these Reasons.

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

2. Socrates the Historian says,

then not this of Easter.

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

§. 7. But the Doctor hath found one Evidence of moment;

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

1. But I would be satisfied, which is the Older Festival, that of John, or this of Christ? Its observed by Chemnitz, that the Feast of the Nativity, was not heard of, in the most ancient Church; till towards the 400. year; but no mention of the Feast of John the Baptist till towards the 800. year; Or it may be they were both appointed about the same time: upon supposition then by the Western Church, that our Savior was borne on the 25. of December (as the Doctor says) and the Feast of Nativity settled upon that day, either they or some others, placed the Feast of John the Baptist on the 24. of June; that all might correspond.

2. If the names of Midwinter day, and Midsommer day, were so called here, while the Island was Heathen, they were far more ancient, than Christmas Day: and then, Christmas day, was rather applied to Midwinter day, than Midwinter day, to Christmas day: but however it was, it follows not (as the Doctor would have it)

For it might be, a good while after, so called, when the Island was first converted, which was not, (as we have discoursed) till towards the end of the second Century.

3. It is confessed by the Doctor,

Then say I, they kept not Christmas day, on Midwinter day; for thats a fortnight sooner: So we keep it not on the same day, with our first converts, nor yet on the day, that the Western Church now keep it, who keep it stilo novo, 10. days before us: Which difference of observation, (as was said of Easter ) argues it, not to be Apostolical, nor soon after our Savior's days (as the Doctor says.) For if they had instituted such a Feast to the honor of our Savior, they would all have agreed upon the same day, in all places, as they did, in observation of the Lord's day, for our Christian Sabbath.

§. 8. Upon those his premises, he draws out two Corolaries or Characters, set upon this, or any other Christian Solemnity, Easter, Pentecost, &c. of immemoriall usage, in this Nation.

To which we have partly spoken afore; and now add; that as the observation of Easter differently from the Western Church, doth argue, that we received not our Christianity from Rome; so the Antiquity of the observation of Christmas, and some other Festivalls (suppose in the third or fourth Century ) may also argue, that they have nothing of the corruption of the Roman See, (we mean, since it was judged Antichristian, about the year 600.) adhering to them: But yet may have too much of the Corruption of those Churches, wherein they were first invented; Corruption (we say) which crept into those Churches, not long after the Apostles days. It's known to all, that read the Histories of the Church, how many Innovations and Superstitions were crept into the Church, long before Rome began to be Babylon; And Romish Religion, is a bundle of most of those Corruptions.

§. 9. But for the second inference,

We shall take leave to demur a little upon this. For grant (as we may) that this Anglicane, or British Church be very ancient, by its foundation, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for its authority, as subordinate to no Forrain Patriarch, yet we justly question, (though the Doctor do not) whither it be which may not upon good reasons, be changed and abolished. It is known sufficiently, that many ancient Customs, and Ceremonies (as ancient perhaps as his Christmas ) instituted, or taken up, by this, and the concurrence of many, if not most Churches, have "without temerity been altered, and abolished: and others may and must, when they be abused to Superstition and profaneness, (as this Feast will appear to have been.) It will not be amiss, here briefly to consider, what that And then, whither this Feast be a Ceremony of that nature.

For the first,

it is not justly called, unquestionable; for it hath for many years past, been the apple of contention, between the Prelates and the Non-conformists: But before we debate it, we desire to know, and be satisfied in two things.

1. What he means by the Church, whither 1. the Universal Church, for he often speaks of that. Sect. 12.45. &c. and charges us

If so, I would say two things; First that the Universal Church, of the first ages (or since) never met to institute any Ceremonies, for all Churches, nor in special, for this of Christmas. Secondly, if they had met, yet that Church, had no power, to bind after Churches, (if they met) if they saw cause to abolish them; for a reason anon to be given. But 2. if he take it of a particular Church, (as this of England: as here he doth) then I say again; 1. We read of no such Cannons made by the Church, at the first conversion, to make the usage so ancient, and to bind all her Children, in after ages. 2. If we did find such, yet the Succeeding Church, having the same Power, may annul if she see cause, what was by them instituted.

2. We desire also to know what he means, by Ceremonies, for this is an ambiguous word, under which the Romanists do shroud their Superstitious Will-worship: Ceremonies then, are of two sorts. 1. Mere Circumstances of commanded Worship, for the more orderly and decent performance of it: Or 2. Parts of Worship, as the Jewish Ceremonies for certain, were. If the Doctor mean it, in the latter sense (as I think he does) we must again distinguish of such Ceremonies, they are either dumb and non-significant, as the Church of Rome hath many, or Significant, and that either, by Nature, or by Institution: If significant by institution, then either by Divine, or Human Institution. These Distinctions being premised, we suppose the Doctor, does not mean of the Ceremonial circumstances, or Adjuncts of commanded worship, for that will not stand him in any stead; nor does any man deny the Church a Power to order those. But he must mean it, of Ceremonial Worship, as opposed to Moral; And that not, for Dumbe or Non-significant Ceremonies: those he dislikes, in the Church of Rome; but for Significant Ceremonies; not significant by Nature, those need no Institution; but by Institution, not Divine, (that were little less than a contradiction) but Human Institution. Then the question is this,

This was the Question to be proved; but is only taken for granted; in these particulars, by the Dr.

1. That the Church whether Universal, or particular hath such a power to institute Ceremonies, (unless they be such as tend to Eutaxy, and Decency, and the preservation or furtherance of God's commanded worship) what and how many she please,

&c. as the Doctor says, but goes not about to prove, but takes it as unquestionable. This we do deny, and we think upon good reasons, (besides the judgment of Reformed Churches;) If the Church be allowed such a power, the mischiefs will be many. As.

1. Its prejudicious to the simplicity of Gospel-worship. 2 Cor. 11.3.

That is, in the Gospel of Christ. It was spoken with respect to the false Apostles, who by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , subtle persuasive words, did corrupt both the Doctrine and Worship of the Gospel; as may appear by comparing this place, with Col. 2. The Worship of the Law, was for the most part, Ceremonial, in external pomp and services: But the Worship of the Gospel, is less ceremonious, and gaudie, and more spiritual; Joh. 4. "in spirit and truth, opposed to those ceremonial, typical, shadows and figures of the Legal worship. The Gospel Worship is for the most part moral, praying, preaching, hearing, &c. without anything like to that ceremonial worship, except the observation of the Lord's day, and the two Sacraments, designed and instituted by Christ himself, or by his Commission: But if the Church have a power to institute ceremonial Worship, she may bring us back to a Legal worship, equal with the Jews: as the Church of Rome hath done.

2. If the Church have any such power, to institute Ceremonies; they must be either Nonsignificant ones, but those Protestants disclaim as idle fooleries: or significant; and then, either by nature, or Institution; Those of nature, need no Institution; If Institution be pleaded, it must be either Divine, but the Church hath nothing to do with them, they are instituted to her hands: Or Human, but thats expreslly against the second Commandment; as hath been said elsewhere.

Hence it was, that those Traditions of worship, introduced by the false teachers, are coudemned, because they were Col. 2.22. which when our Divines urge against such kind of ceremonial worship, in the Church of Rome, as Human Institutions, they have no way to avoid it, but to say; as the Rhemists speak, on Math. 15.9. and others more. And therefore Papists may better plead their binding power, than ours can do. I shall add to this, That to institute significant ceremonies, as a part of Worship, is a superstjtious excess, and so Will-worship, which I prove from the Doctors own Concessions: & so Superstition; but for men to institute significant ceremonies, for edification, to teach, and instruct, &c. is to put more virtue and efficacy in them then naturally, or by the Rule of the Word, (that is, Divine Institution) God put in them; ergo. The Major is the Doctors own; the Minor is evident: They have it not by Nature; nor by divine Institution (then they needed not human Institution) ergo, it is superstitious; and consequently the Church hath no such power.

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

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

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

4. Once more, he takes as granted;

What? not by the Universal Church? not by the succeeding Church? That were to make the Laws of a particular Church, like those of the Medes and Persians, unchangeable, and equal with the Laws of God. Or else to cut short the succeeding Church from the same privilege of the former; and so in time the Church may lose all power to institute New ceremonies; or else ceremonies may be multiplied to the end of the world. And so much of the first, the Authority of the Church, to institute Ceremonies. A word of the next.

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

§. 10.

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

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

§. 11. Secondly,

We answer to this; The Churches that retain these Feasts (especially the Lutherans ) are not reputed the best Reformed Churches, nor by the Doctor himself (I believe) thought fit to be compared with England, & some other Churches in Doctrine and Worship, and so no fit presidents for our Reformation. What private persons wish or say, is not much to be regardded; unless their reasons be constringent. However, we are not alone, nor the first in this dis-usage of this Festival: Some Protestant Reformed Churches, are with us, and afore us. As for the Sermons given to Christmas day, by some that now disuse it (wherein is falsely said, now to consist, their prayers being as good, and as large as the Liturgies ) it will afford him no more succor, than this; That the Authority then in being, commanding Vacation from work, they only took the opportunity to preach, to prevent disorders in their people, which attend such Festivities; And the Authority now in force, prohibiting, they do forbear to preach.

§. 12.3. The laying down, or disusing the observation of this Festivity,

Not the latter for certain; for we have proved afore, the first and purest ages of the Church, did not observe it. Not the former, unless he will yield, that the Reformation of the Church of England, in former times, was a Division or separation from the Church of Rome; or the Reformation in Luther's time, was a division and separation from the Catholic Church, as Papists say it was.

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

1.

all the year long; they cannot but often hear of the Birth, Life, Death, Burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Knowledge which the ignorant people learned by some men's Christmas Sermons, was slender indeed, nothing but a Superficiall (as he) Notionall, carnal knowledge of one Jesus (as that Roman Deputy spake) that was borne at that time, to give men liberty to Feast, & be merry.

2. This cannot (as he charges it)

but rather to keep it (as usually they did) in all Festival delights, (like the Revells of Bacchus ) did both mote gratify their Worldly lusts, and tended to Atheism, and profaneness.

3. The Casuists (whose great reason he seems to applaud) affirming, that

spake with as much, that is, as little reason, as their fellows the Jesuits, who say and affirm, that

4. The ejecting of these Holydaies out of the Church, will not any with

(the Creed being still to be retained, in and with the Catechism ) for the Ministers preaching constantly of those Truths, may help not only in some degree (as he) but very much, and more, than the great Holydaies of themselves can do. And why not abundantly sufficient as it was, in the first planting of Churches, before these Festivalls were invented? We have had enough experience, that in those places (Cathedral Cities) where those Festivalls have been most punctually and solemnly observed (taking in there Chrystmas Sermons too) there have been found, less saving knowledge of Christ, more Superstition, and more Prophanesse, than in any Country Villages, where the Gospel hath been sinceerely preached.

§. 14.

sound knowledge; but in the ungrounded professors of former times, made formal Christians by external Ceremonies, & outward Pomp of service: But those that endeavored to Reforme the abuses of Superstition and profaneness, are the men only, or chiefly, that propugne and maintain sound Doctrine; whereas those that were the greatest favorers of those Festvities, some of them, either are fallen into the propagating of error, Arminianism, &c. or at least do little appear to maintain the truth

As for

its observable in many strong pleaders for Christmas, that they are willing enough to abate the charge of the Feast, both then, and all the year after; yet nobody hinders them from being Hospitable and Charitable.

§. 15.5.

Gideon's design, in making a Golden Ephod, was very fair, to leave a Monument of his Victory, yet it proved a snare, to him and his house & to all Israel. Many of the Superstitions of the now Church of Rome, had no doubt a pious design, and a show of wisdom, but the issue hath been very mischievous: Even so, it hath happened to this Institution now in hand.

§. 16. There may indeed a threefold guilt and danger be charged upon the Institution and continuance of this observance;

The two former, (he says) he hath spoken to else where, viz. In the two former, though something be said in general, or in thesi, yet nothing, that I observe, in special, or in hypothesi, of this Festival. Indeed in his practical Catechism, he hath undertaken the vindication of it, from all these three charges, but more largely, the two first there; and here more of the last, that of Riot; we shall consider what he says, in order.

First to free the Festival, from the charge of Willworship, he proceeds two ways.

1.

This argument should not have had the first place, but the second, in a just method. The Doctor should first have proved that they that instituted the Festival, had a lawful power to do it; before he proved them that observe the usage, to be innocent. For may not Papists plead the same argument, for observation, of not only their Holydaies, but of their invocation of Saints, adoration of Images, and the Mass it self. But to the particulars we say many things. 1. Did he not a little before found the Times or days designed to public worship, upon the equity or morality of the 4 ^th Commandment? Hear what he says, of the Importance of that 4 ^th Commandment; and again, he means by that Commandment: Then say I, if the 4 ^th Commandment, do necessarily require a designation of some Time, for worship ( private as well as public; for so he resolves, in answer to the next question there) does not the same Commandment as necessarily require the observation, or sanctification of that Time, but it must be reduced to the 5. Commandment? Let him remember what he says, in his Treatise of Will-worship, Sect. 4. The application is easy, and I add; must God be beholden to men, either for the designation, or observation of his due Time, by a duty from the 5 ^th Commandment? What if Superiors be so profane, as to set apart no time for God's worship, or not to enjoine and require the observation of that Time, is every man free, to observe some, or none, at his pleasure? what if there be no Public Worship? what if a man be and live in places where neither Time nor Public Worship, is appointed by Superiors, is he now at liberty, to take all Time, as his own? so it seems, by this Doctrine; if men observe Times, Lord's day, and others, only as a duty to Superiors in the 5 ^th Commandment.

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

3. He also supposes, that the Church or State hath power to Sanctify a Time,

which we think, God only can do.

4. He also takes it as granted, that the Church may design, as little, or as much, as few or as many Times, or Daies, as they shall think fit, and that ordinarily,

which we suppose they cannot do, without prejudice to the 4 ^th Commandment, and to Christian liberty; seeing the burden of Jewish Holy days is taken off, by Christ, and we reduced to the 4 ^th Commandment, as for one day in seven to be holy, so for our allowance of six days, for our own works. The result of this answer is this, that they that retain this usage of the Festival, as a day made Holy by the Church, or state are both injurious to God, in usurpation upon his prerogative, in the 4 ^th Commandment, and also guilty of Willworship, in holding up a Worship, not commanded by God, against the second Commandment.

2.

To this we say, in general, it may be Will-worship to observe what is commanded by others, as well as to institute worship, without a command; In special, to the first reason, the Feasts instituted by the Jews, we shall speak anon, here, sect. 29. To the second, of Freewill-offerings, we say.

1. These Holy days of men's Institution, are not like those Freewill-offerings of the old Law, as we have shown, upon his Treatise of Willworship, sect. 29.

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

3. Suppose the Jews should have made more Holydaies, yearly, than God commanded, would they have been accepted? should they not have heard, who required these at your hands? we may guess by their Fasts which they appointed; God instituted one Fast only, once a year; upon the Expiation day: They, in their captivity, appointed more, in the 5. and 7. month yearly; but what acceptance found they? see Zech. 7.5.

And may not Papists, who have a Saint and an Holyday, almost for every day in the year, be justified by this arguing? Hath it not a great show of wisdom, Piety, Devotion, to devo • e most of their time to God? Are they not their Free-will-offerings, the more acceptable, because voluntary, and uncommanded? Let no man say, they dedicate those days to Saints, and Invocate the Saints, &c. and that makes them abhominable: But suppose none of those, but the Holy days be (as the Church of England expressed herself) devoted only to the honor of God; but yet esteemed as more holy, and as a Worship of God; and more acceptable to God, because voluntary: even these, and that other, that its done without command of God, will denominate them Will-worship and so odious to God. And so much for that.

Secondly, he comes now to vindicate it from Superstition, and says;

To which we say: For the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Superstition; we have considered it in his Treatise of Superstition; and have found him granting the sense of them to be far larger, than the Worshiping of Daemons: And we have proved it rather to signify any false, Superradded worship, not commanded of God, as Super statutum, above the Law of God: In a word, any false worship of the true God; which is exemplified in many particulars there: amongst which, this is one, We shall consider what he says to vindicate this Festival, from it.

1.

This is granted; But to Institute a day as Holy, without command of Christ, for an Annual commemoration of this, is above the power of any Church, and a Superstitious presumption: and withal needless; considering that the Lord's day, (which includes the commemoration, not only of his Birth, but his Resurrection, and the whole works of our Redemption by him) was instituted by himself, or his Apostles, by him authorized and inspired, for this very end; & comes about once in every week. To limit it therefore to one day in a year, to remember that Mercy, is not an exaltation, but a derogation from it. If this were done, on his own designed Day, we need not fixe another day.

2.

True, but then any day, whereon these duties are done, is as holy a Day, as Christmas day: or if he think, the duties are more acceptable for the Days sake, or for the voluntary dedication of it by men, I fear they will be so much less acceptable to God, and no better than Superstition.

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

1.

True but without a set, a fixed holy time, it may: Here's a fallacy, from time as a natural and necessary adjunct, of an action, to Time, as Holy, as Worship. Which yet is not observed by the Doctor; For he, with others, seems to hold Time in the 4 ^th Commandment, to be only an Adjunct of worship, as of any other action; but we think Time in the 4 ^th Commandment, is a part of worship: And this I think they do make it, in this present case: For they do not only make the duties, praying, praising, preaching, &c. a part of worship, (which they are every day, when they are performed) but the very Dedication, and observation of the Day it self, to be a voluntary oblation, a Freewill-offering, an honor and service to Christ; as we shall hear.

2.

So would we, if we knew the Day; but this does not prove, that they intended to set that day apart as Holy, without command from Christ: the Lord's day being appointed for that end.

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

4. For the 25 ^th. day of December to be the day of Christ's birth, we shall speak to it hereafter, ad sect. 36. Only we observe what he says, upon the mistake of the day:

Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists Doctrine of venial sins? It puts me in mind of a subterfuge of Bellarm. and others, when we object (upon their own confessions) that there may be danger of Idolatry, in the Sacrament, if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body of Christ: They answer, can any ignorance be blameless against a Law of God, or wash away an Error without the blood of Christ? Would not Christ have revealed the very day, if he had intended the day to be kept holy, as a worship of himself? But I shall put him a case. Suppose the Jews had mistaken the day of the week for the Sabbath, or the day of the month for the Passover, had they not sinned because they thought they were not mistaken? Had the When the very day was as strictly commanded as the business itself? Let him consider it.

I shall here insert the judgment of the learned Chemnitz, who, though he allow the observation of this, and other Festivals (as a Lutheran ) with a reservation of Christian liberty, without necessity of obligation, &c. yet he notes no less then thirteen ways or kinds of Superstition, in Papists observation of Holy days. We note some of them.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. " In the Necessity of observation.

6.

7.

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

First, for placing holiness in them equal with the Lord's day, and above other days: It appears both by men's words and deeds. By word, in calling them Holy days, and equalling them with the Lord's day, as both of the Churches instituted. The Doctor himself, sect. 20. calls this Festival most sacred; and sect. 24. tells us,

And so it was, in all Cathedrals at least, with more solemn services; with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lord's day; on which, sports were permitted, but "no touching cards, or dice that day, Ibid.

Secondly, not only the services, but the observation of the day also, was esteemed an higher piece of service than that of the Lord's day; more acceptable, then commanded worship, because more voluntary. So the Dr. often.

Thirdly, placing the worship of God in the observation of the day, as a voluntary oblation, and parallel with the Freewill-offerings in the Law (which the Doctor takes special notice of, * were parts of God's worship)

Sect. 28.

Fourthly, Forbidding labors on that day, with greater zeal, and severer penalties than on the Lord's day: It was held and accordingly censured, as more Piacular, to work upon this day, than on the Lord's day.

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

Sixthly, It became a note of discrimination of people, as more or less Religious. Just as the Doctor observed of the Hasidaei, and makes it part of their Superstition, or Willworship,

And was not this exemplified in the Institution of this Festival? At first, after an Age or two from the Apostles, some began to set up this (and other days) as a voluntary oblation to Christ, and a pious Addition to the Lord's day: others in time, made it necessary (as Socrates observed) and then laid the obligation of it upon others, to do as they did; And if they were not obeyed, they discriminated themselves from such as refused, as the only pious and Religious men of the Times. That good Father Saint Austin was a little faulty here; if that work was Austin's: To which the Dr. adds Pract. Cat. And hear the Doctors own discrimination of himself and his party, by the censure of himself and his party, by the Censure of the Refusers. Sect. 45. Which Sect. 12. he had called How justly or truly, let the Reader judge, by that which hath, and shall be said. In the mean time, the Doctor hath handsomely given or taken the name of Pharisees to himself and his parties, as volunteeres in worship, above the law of God, and left the name of honest & modest Karaej, unto others, who dare not venture to go beyond, or before the Law, in worship.

Obj. But he starts an objection: It hath a semblance of that Mat. 5.9.

I reply, 1 Teaching for Doctrines here, is not the affirming a thing to be a command of God, (or not that only) but is expounded by Col. 2.22. That is, men out of their wisdom, prescribe, and by their authority command such and such doctrines, either as very pious and pleasing, or more acceptable to God, as a voluntary worship; not always affirming them to be the commandments of God, but holding them out as the Traditions of the Elders, as the Pharisees did. 2. Its so much more chargeable on them, (that acknowledge it an Ecclesiastical Institution,) as a kind of Superstition; because those Pharisees and false Teachers, (as he says) pleaded God's Command, for their doctrines; for what they did, in matter of worship: But these pretend only the Churches command, which is worse then putting the Kings seal to a deed of their own: For it usurps the very throne of God, to appoint his worship; which is the highest Treason. Other things there are concerning this controversy, which we shall take notice of hereafter, and now come to consider, how he can vindicate this Festival, from the Riot and excess, commonly found there; which he acknowledges, To which we say.

§. 17. The Jewish promises, being for the most part of earthly plenty (not only, for they had also spiritual promises) they were permitted (like children fed with milk and honey ) a week of earthly joys and pleasures; But the promises and exhibitions of them by Christ being all Spiritual to Christians; Spiritual joys (are as the Doctor says well) the "Christians eminent, if not only portion; but these are not limited to one or twelve days in a year, but daily joys, every day is a Christmas to a godly heart; "Rejoice in the Lord always, again I say rejoice.

§. 18. "Festivity and hospitality, (its true) are separable from riot: but very hardly; And if gluttony and drunkenness were the prescribed worship in Heathenish Feasts; we have found by long experience, they were the practiced entertainment of this Festival; which many years preaching could not reform. The heathenish usages in it (almost yielded sect. 2.) as they do imply, that the Festival it self was instituted to gratify the Heathens, by imitation of their feasts at the same time of the year: so God to show his dislike, if not his detestation of it, hath fuffered these Human inventions and institutions in his service, to be attended and celebrated, with the two extremes of true worship, Superstition and Prophanesse: we shall hear anon, Sect. 21.

So soon these abuses got into them; and all this while for so many hundred years, could not be gotten out by all the Fathers, & Children of the Church: The spiritual dainties of a Christian, peace with God, and joy in the holy Ghost, (the quotidian Festival) are free from these excesses. Those that have most of these, care least for earthly joys; and they that care most for earthly joys, (without which the Festivitie, would be thought a time of Lent, & Fasting ) (its feared) least of those Spiritual dainties.

§. 19. As some having left this custom of Christmas (so called) have used their liberty of Feasting at other times; which argues, (says the Doctor)

So others that keep up, or cry up the custom of the Festivity, have taken the liberty to lay aside Hospitality and Charity, not only at that time, but all the year long; which shows it was not so much the Hospitality that they liked, as an old Custom, received by Tradition of their Fathers: which usually sticks (as Ivy to the tree) closer to carnal hearts, then any truth of Religion, or Institution o • God:

That good Cheer and Hospitality and better clothes, are the attendant upon God's Festivities, is a known and granted truth: But the Doctor must first prove this, to be one of them Necessary or Lawfull, and then talk of better cheer and clothes Hospitality to friends, and Charity to the poor, have time enough to be exercised all the year; But to make a Misers Feast, (as they say) at Christmas, and to neglect both neighbors and poor all the year after, is but a poor evidence of Hospitalitie or Charity.

§. 20. If the Doctor will yield (as he seems to do)

That then he will believe there is place and season of Reformation in this particular; The time is long ago past, when Reformation should have found a place and season, not only of the excess aforesaid, but of the Festivitie it self, which hath ordinarily, if not inseparably been attended with such mischiefs without the least attempt of Reformation.

§. 21. When pride and surfeiting, &c. got first into Festivities, in the Ancient Churches (as is confessed) the Fathers had they endeavored the Removall of the occasion, the Feasts themselves, they had prevented many grievous sins, which to this day have been the concomitants of such Festivities, and had saved the Reformers of latter times much work, which now they find by the opposition of such as hate to be reformed. As for his

Saint Paul might have taught him a better way of Reformation; who when the Agapae, the Feasts of Charity, (begun upon good intentions, to relieve the poor, and testify brotherly affections) began to be abused to surfeiting and drunkenness. 1 Cor. 11. did not exercise his discipline only upon the outward Riotous party, but upon those Feasts themselves, by distraction or abolition of them. Some man (perhaps the Doctor,) would have said; must the abuse of a laudable custom take away the use thereof? might not the Apostle have tried other remedies, as in the next section.

§. 22. But yet see how Indulgent and tender the Doctor is, in his Reformation:

So that lesser and lesser general abuses need no Reformation; this is pretty unntempered mortar: but we shall assume; The abuses have been long so great, that they out-balance the good pretended, and so general, that the whole nation, (if not the whole Church) hath run madding after them; (besides the Superstition on the Churches part, almost equal to that in the brazen serpent, of which before, and hereafter more.) Therefore its time they should be abolished, in relation to this Festivity.

§. 23. It is easily believed, that not only the loosely disposed, (as he says) will turn the Lord's day, into luxury and excess; but also the superstitiously devoted to this day, who prefer it in opinion and practice, above the Lord's day. These latter will not labor or play upon Christmas day,

But its known two well that the Lord's day, it was the ordinary practice of some great Rabbies, and ceremonialists, after evening prayer (if not all the afternoon ) to play at cards, and so continue till night. And this is the common issue of all inventions of men, in the service of God; as to prefer them before the Institutions of God, "The Statutes of Omri are kept: So to make bold with God's Institutions, rather then their own. They (for the most part) that are most strict and zealous in pleading for, and observation of the Festivalls are commonly most remiss, and loose in observation of the Lord's day.

§. 24. For this, we have the Doctors own assertion,

To which we say; First, this is part of the Superstition we charge it with; that the day, hath been esteemed and accounted more sacred, we think equal strictness of observation, were too much; to set their posts, cheek by joale with God's. But we know the ground of this, to be, that they make the Lord's day, and Festivalls, to be founded on the same Authority, viz. of the Church; and then why (as one of them says) should they not have equal observation.

Secondly,

(it seems the Doctor alowes both, on the other days) may seem to add to their Superstition, or Hypocrisy. Their Superstition (if cards and dice be lawful) in that they forbid them on a day, that God hath not forbidden them; which is to make it an holy day, equal to God's; (besides that noted in the former section, that some would touch, and touch again, Cards on the Lord's day ) Their Hypocrisy (if they be unlawful) that pretend to worship God one day, by touch not, handle not, that they may take a dispensation or license to offend him all the twelve days after. For I pray, why are Cards or Dice more lawful (I say not on the Lord's day ) on Stephens or Johns day, than on Christmas day? why more unholy, or unlawful on Christmas day, than on the other?

Thirdly,

For the whole twelve days are accounted part of the Festivity, and ordered to wait upon it. Sect. 39. says the learned Doctor. And so the Day it self, is guilty in part, of all the excesses of the following days; which are services fitter for the Revells of Bacchus or Saturn, or for the birthday of an Herod, than for the Festivity of a Spiritual Savior.

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

§. 28. First he acknowledges,

That it was not instituted by the Apostles, the same arguments will conclude, which are used against their Institution of Easter, sect. 6.1. There is no mention either of Institution or observation of it in Scripture, nor any ground produced thence, to found it on. 2. Socrates the Historian says expressly, If for no Festivalls, then not for this of the Nativity. And its observable what he adds; It must then remain upon the succeeding Church. And there is no doubt but this is true, the succeeding Church, did set up Festivalls; but what Church was that? not that of the Apostles age, nor that of Apostolical men, that had lived some time with the Apostles: For the first Records of Fathers we have, say not a word of any such observation. The succeeding Church, in the second or third Century, it seems, began to take it up: and then Socrates adds; And here is the most likely Original of all Festivalls. Hear what the learned Lord Faulkland says, in a like case, to our purpose To which may be added what he had said, in the end of the former page, But Superstitious rites were never without a show of wisdom as the Apostle says, Col. 2.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a fair pretence of Reason. And the Doctor gives us one here. But if this was so very reasonable, why did it not seem so to the Apostles, and the Church of that and the next age? Or did not they acknowledge the receipt of such a mercy? and were not their desires as fervent for the celebration of a Remembrance of ir? &c. would not Christ himself respect his own service, and honor? Nor his Apostles prescribe and institute a voluntary oblation to Christ, if they had thought it so great an honor to him? Are not all Superstitious inventions of men, in the worship of God, intended as voluntary oblations to him, because which is expressly against the second Commandment by the Apostle, under the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Willworship. Col. 2.23. & 18. as we have said.

§. 29.

But there may be many mistakes in this; and not appliable to the case in hand. First, there were (which he takes notice of) three Feasts of the Dedication, 1. by Solomon, 2. by Zerubbabell at the Repairing of the Temple. 3. by Judas Maccabaeus, for the purging of it: Now he cannot but know, that learned men, are divided, of which its here meant: Some of the first, some of the second; though its probable it was not meant of either of them; both because, we read not, that those two were ever observed above once, and also because of the time of the observation specified, it was in winter: which the other were not. 2. But grant it of the last; yet there are reasons to think, that it was not a Religious Festival, but civil, as the Feast of Purim seems to be, Esth. 9.21.22. And so its said of the Feast of Dedication, 1 Maccab. 4.59. For though it be said, ver. 56. they offered burnt offerings; yet that was ver. 53. according to the Law; and so was worship commanded. 3. If it yet be said, it was a Religious Festival, and so observed, even the day itself; then it may fairly be suggested, And so those were kept as extraordinary days of thanksgiving for one turn, only which we grant lawful, to be done by the Superior powers, as also we do, extraordinary days of Humiliation: which the Doctor also approves; pract. Catech. Append. p. 304.4. Another mistake is this; The t xt produced says no such thing, but only thus, So he did other days, any day, when no Feast was: He was present in the Temple, not at the Feast; for ought appears, which it seems, was kept with joy and Feasting in the City.

§. 30. The like may be said of the Festivities at marriage, which were not indeed instituted by God, nor need to be, being that Marriage it self is a Civil thing, and not Religious; and in things of that nature, if they were soberly and temperately observed, Christ was never scrupulous, to conform to the customs of the places, where he came. But Christmas day, is made a piece of

by others, and by the Dr. himself. sect. 28.

§. 31. These Instances then are both impertinent, what hath he

Why, that which I still expected to meet with; is his strongest plea: for this he says, Before we hear more, lets consider this: For first, there want not learned men, who think that Christ himself did institute or design the day. But secondly, if the Apostles did institute it (as the Doctor grants) thats more than some of his Colleagues will grant, (and thank him for it) and more than he dare peremptorily say, of his Christmas day: He speaks it doubtingly, Secondly, if the Lord's day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ, do not their Institutions carry in them, a Divine prescription or Law, for the observation of it? And if they instituted the first day of the week, to be the Lord's day, or Christian Sabbath, do not at least some mentions of the first day, of the week, imply their Institution of that day to be holy, and require withal the observation of it? as 1 Cor. 16.2. in the judgment of some, no great Favourers of the Lord's day Sabbath? Lets now hear what he says more. To which I say.

1. The vulgar Latin, authorized by the Church of Rome, (as willing to make Easter of Apostolic Institution, as the Doctor) did not find this Law for it, in this text: That renders it only epulemur, let us keep Feast; though the word signify also, festum diem agere; and is by some, no mean ones glossed thus;

Before him the learned Aquinas, could not find Easter here. Before them Saint Chrysostom, was not so quick sighted to find a Law for Easter here, but an every day Holyday, for so he says. Not much unlike doth Saint Ambrose interpret the word, &c. I add but one thing more; The learned Bishop of Winchester, who pleads as strongly for this Easter Feast, as any, yet founds it not upon this text, though he had occasion to name it, but upon the Custom of the Church.

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

3. That the Lord's day Rev. 1.10. should belong to the Easter day, is the fancy of some, who of late have labored to depress the honor of the Lord's day; contrary therein to all the ancient and modern writers. In a word, (as was said afore) the difference in observation of it, in the several Churches, argues it not to be Apostolical. Which difference the Doctor notes in this Section.

§. 32. Its true that Arius is by Epiphanius branded as an Heretic, for some opinions, justly, if they be truly charged upon him: But it is well known to the learned, that all is not Heresy, that Epiphanius calls so: Nor all Arius opinions justly censured as Heretical; as the Doctor, or any may see, if he consult with Osiander, the Epitomizer of the Centuriators. And he is found, in some of those opinions to be seconded by divers ancient Fathers, as is asserted by some of our learned Modern Divines, if it were not unnecessary here to manifest.

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

§. 33. Yet when he would infer, from this example of the Martyrs Festivities:

he presumes too much upon his own reason; not able, it seems, to produce any Testimonies, of those or former times, for such observations; which I the rather take notice of, because the Doctor uses not to wave any Testimony, that doth but look that way; and also because I observe, that the learned Chemnitz, a man of vast reading, having reckoned up the Festivalls, that were in observation, in the first four hundred years, can find none, by name, of any Apostle; but refers them to the time of Carolus Magnus, Anno 800. or at least to Constantine's time; which was in the beginning of 400.

§. 35. That Christmas, or the Feast of the Nativitie, was not Apostolical, hath been made appear before; That which he now alleges from the Constitutions called Apostolical, will weaken his cause the more, because they are generally accounted posthumous and spurious. And that saying of Nicephorus, (no very credible Author)

Shakes the Antiquity of it; For if the Apostles had instituted it, it would have had an universal observation, over the world, long before Justinus his days, ho lived in the 6. Century. As for Dioclesians burning so many thousand on Christmas day, we have spoken before; and only now note, that Nicephorus says, it was done by Maximinus; However this was, in the beginning of the 4 ^th Century; as was said above.

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

First, the Doctor himself hath given us one ground of scruple, sect. 7. when he says,

confessed by him to be a fortnight distant, from the 25. of December.

Secondly, it hath been the opinion of many, if not most of our learned Divines, that our Lord died, when he was about 33. and half years of age, (or near unto 34. as the Doctor says) Now the death of Christ was at the time of the Passover, about our March, or April; If now Christ died at 33. and an half; then count 6. months backward, when he was just 33. years old, and that will fall about September: If at 34. complete, then he was born and died just about the same time, that is about April: That's another ground of scruple, in our Calculation.

Thirdly, the Arabic Codex of the Counsels, is of younger date, not able to justify the Canons called Apostolical, to be Apostolical.

Fourthly, Sect. 37. the Doctor himself, is upon his ifs, and tis probable;

This is enough to shake the authority of those Canons, and so the Antiquity of the Festival on such a day.

§. 39. Its very like that Twelfe day is of the same Original, and same Antiquity with Christmas day, or not not much younger, but both of them Posthumous to the prime Antiquity. The observation of both, not much differing in their solemnity.

so special and solemn, that it outwent the Lord's day, as Christmas also did; which is usual, for men's inventions to out do the Institutions of God.

§. 40. But there is something that weakens the Antiquity of this Twelfe day Festival, viz. that it is not certain.

1. whence it had the name of the Epiphany: whither from the appearing of the Star to the wisemen, or from the descending of the Holy Ghost upon Christ, at his Baptism; or (as the Doctor himself adds, Sect. 41.) " From the first appearing of Christ in the World.

2. It is made more uncertain, because Epiphanius affirms,

And the Doctor says, he is more inclined to the last of the three conjectures, that is, as Epiphanius had said, which though the Doctor say, that it is confuted by Saint Jerome; yet is enough to shake the Authority, of the Institution, that certainly it is not Apostolical, nor by the Primitive purest Churches, when the name was not agreed on, in Epiphanius time; (in the fourth Century) nor the day it self distinguished, but Christmas day by some, was observed on the same day. Whither the Mag • came to Christ, the next twelfe day after his Birth, or that day twelvemonth, I shall not dispute; only I shall tell the Doctor, that Cheronicus is of opinion, that they came the twelfth day after Christ's Birth, and seem to have reason for it; The 41, 42, 43. Sections may receive their solution, from what is all-ready said.

§. 44. But now he will put it beyond all question, by the testimony of Chrysostom, and other Ancients;

This indeed would end the question concerning the day of Christ's Birth, but makes yet nothing to the main question; That Christmas (so called) is of Apostolical Institution; or of the next age. Lets hear what may be said to those Testimonies. To begin with the most ancient, Justin Martyr he brings the Rolls to evidence the place of Christ's Birth, but says not a word of the observation of the Festivitie of his Birthday, in his time. The like may be said for Tertullian; He alleges the Rolls, fidelissimum testem Dominicae Nativitatis: (mark that) a most faithful witness of the Lord's Nativity, (which Marcion denied) not Natalis Diei testem, a witness of the Observation of his Birthday, as Festival in his time; or on the 25. of December: for he makes no mention of that Festival at all, which is probable he would, if any such Custom had been then in Being. The whole weight then of the business must lie upon Saint Chrysostom, who in his Hom. of the Nativity; says, Suppose we shotld grant this Testimony to be true and Authentic, for the day of our Lord's Birth; (which yet is doubtful, by what hath been said before, and shall anon) yet this will not prove that Antiquity of the Festival, which the Doctor would thence conclude. For besides, that Chrysostom lived in the fourth Century, when the Tradition was grown to a Law, (as Socrates said) himself gives us occasion of scruple, by the weakness of his proofs. He tells us of a threefold demonstration, that the Day which they celebrated, was in the month of December, called by the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as the month wherein Christ was conceived, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : We shall consider his Demonstrations in order.

1. The first is this,

But does the Father at all, go about to prove this? That which he says is, But he says not a word, when the Feast of the Nativity first began to be celebrated.

2. His second Demonstration is from the great Taxing of the World by Augustus, when all went to be taxed, into his own City: At which time Joseph and Mary going up to Bethlehem, Christ was born, Luk. 2.6.7. Now the time of this Tax, was recorded in the Rolls of Augustus at Rome; and the good Father, was certified from thence, by some that dwell there, that it was in such a Month, and such a year. All this may be granted; but this proves only the truth and time of Christ's birth; but not the observation of the day as Festival: Yes, may some say, with the Doctor, for the Father adds,

This might well be, if we consider the time and Age that both they and this Father lived in, which was (as we said) in the fourth Century: an 100. or 200. years before, might be so styled, an ancient Tradition.

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

First, that Zechariah, was then high Priest, and secondly, That the time was, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the day of expiation, on the 7 ^th month, and 10 ^th day of the month, at which time only the high Priest and he alone went into the most holy place. Now (says the Father) Zechariah was at this time gone alone into the most holy place, and all the people were without praying, Luk. 1.9, 10. This he proves, because its said, when the Angel came to him, he saw him standing on the right side of the Altar of incense; which Zacharias' lot was to burn, at that time: The Altar of burnt offerings (says he) was without, and the Altar of incense within the Vail. But now, if learned men be not mistaken, this is a great mistake in this Father. For first, the Author of the Notes upon the fifth Tome of Chrysostom; (Sir Henry Savill, I suppose) makes this observation upon the Fathers words, pag. 515. l. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,

So far he.

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

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

3. The Altar of Incense was not within the Vail, but without, and there Zechariah was ready at least to burn Incense, when the Angel stood on the right side of it. The High Priest did offer his Incense indeed within the Vail, but that was in a Censer, not upon the Altar; as is said, Levite. 16.12. but he only took coals from the Altar of the burnt offering; and Incense from the Altar of of Incense, and put them both in a Censer, and offered it within the Vail: whereas the other Priests offered it daily, without the Vail. Now the Supposition of the Father, being ungrounded, what he builds upon it, will be far from a demonstration. But if all his proofs were good, that the month was December, and the day, the 25. of that month, whereon Christ was born; we ask again, what is this to prove the Antiquity of the Festival of the Nativitie? Chrysostom himself hath much shaken the Authority of the Church, Universal, in constituting it, and celebrating of it, in all ages: For, it seems, it was very questionable in his time; whither it was a new or an ancient custom: Hear his own words, in the Homilie where he so earnestly pleads for it.

So that it seems, to be a Tradition indeed of some standing, and observed in many places, but not universally, in Chrysostom's time, in the fourth Century: Yea questioned by many; and so no universal, much less, an Apostolical Institution; which all this while, the Doctor hath endeavored to make the World believe.

§. 45. His conclusion then, must needs be like his premises, weak and insufficient, if not injurious: That,

An heavy charge, if it can be proved once, as it is asserted twice here, and Sect. 12. before. But now, I can return him this answer.

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

2. There was a time, when the Universal Church of some, yea many ages, and this of England among them (I mean during the time of Antichrists revelling in all Churches) observed may more Holydaies than the reformed Church of England did observe, or he pleads for. Will he say the Church of England, and himself are guilty of an affected departure from the Universal Church? If the Church of England at her first Reformation saw cause, and had Power to throw away some; may not the same Church of England, having the same power, upon just the same or like reasons, cast off the rest? If he say; He speaks it of the Universal Church of all Ages, and especially of the first age, we shalll join issue with him therein; and and say, If he can prove (which I am confident he cannot) that in rejecting, or not observing, these Festivalls, we have departed from the Universal Church in all ages; we shall be content to let his censure fall upon us; till then, we are safe. And for a closure of the whole matter; we shall take into consideration his Rule, prescribed in his first Quaerie, abour Resolving controversies, and be judged by it. It is this.

This resolution, and Case, the Doctor beginns with, and intends it as a Rule, applicable to all the following cases; He means, (we thank him) those that reject this Festival, as Sect. 12. and 45. of this Quaerie, appears: But is this Rule universally true? Are there no cautions, nor exceptions? yes, three at least.

1. It must be in cases,

2.

3.

We shall (by his leave) apply this rule, to the case in hand; and dare venture to be judged by it: First considering the Rule, and then the cautions.

And first for the Rule it self, we desire to know again, what he means, by

If he take it inclusively, to take in the Churches of the Apostolical time, while they were yet alive, we should not stick to grant his rule to be good. it was Apostolical. The Negative whereof being a surer Rule to jvdge by; For they being all guided, by on Spirit, would all agree, uniformly, in the same Doctrine, or practice. But there are not many things so attested by the Church of that age. On the other side, if he mean it exclusively of that age, and to include only the after ages, it will prove a Crooked Rule; Many Doctrines, and practices being taken up, which were not Apostolical, but mere Inventions of men; which like a Gangreen, soon overspead the face of the Church: And by the different Timing, and observation of them, proved by the best Divines not to be Apostolical.

Secondly, for

(which is one of the Cautions) that this was delivered from the Apostles; I shall put in a just exception, in the words of the learned and honored Lord Falkland; in his discourse, who plead, the universal Tradition of the Church, for their Religion, (as the Doctor does, for his Christmas. ) Thus he writes: &c. The Doctors wisdom can easily apply this to the case in hand. And I perceive he was aware of such an objection, and therefore labors to prevent it, by saying, But for that, let him answer his friend the Lord Falkland, who says, And what now is become of the Doctors Rule?

Thirdly, the Rule applied to the case in hand, will prove, (more then the Doctor intended) a light to discover his Christmas far from an universal, Apostolical usage; For.

1. The Rule must hold, only in things, " wherein the Scripture is obscure, or silent: But for Institution of Feasts, (particularly this of Christmas) the Scripture is neither obscure nor silent. For the Scripture is clear, and speaks aloud against it; both in the Law, the fourth Commandment, which requires peremptorily, but one of seven for God, allowing six for men's occasions; and also in the Gospel, which clearly speaks, against observation of days (except the Lord's day, the the Christian Sabbath) whither Jewish, Heathenish, or Christian. Festivalls of old, were part of the Ceremonial yoke, upon the Jews, and therefore to give the Church a power, to institute Holydaies, is to reduce the yoke again.

2. They have not the concordant Testimony of the Primitive Ancients; neither of the Apostles themselves, nor of those that lived, in the same age with them, as of Ignatius: nor in the second Century, of Pappias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, &c. which may the better be believed, because the Doctor brings not one instance of any of those, so much as mentioning this Festival, except out of the Constitutions of the Apostles, falsely so called; which Isodorus (by Gratians report of him, Dist. 16.) says,

This Chemnitz further proves, because the Fathers of the first Ages, do not so much as intimate any such usage in their times. who lived not till the fourth Century at least: They say indeed, it was in practice, in some places, before their time; but that might be, some 100. more or less years, and yet be far from the first ages of the Church, or being Universal.

3. Another of the Doctors cautions is, it must be attested,

But this, his Christmas found in the fourth Century, as we heard, Sect. 44. In Chrysostom's time, there was a considerable opposition; For a conclusion, then of all; the Doctors Censure is too harsh, and the Character too hard, that is set upon the refusing of it. We shall only put him in mind of two places, in his own writings. The one here, at Sect. 35. the other Testimony of Nicephorus; Then say I, it was not an Universal usage in all ages of the Church (which the Doctor hath so long pleaded for) for Justinus lived in the sixth Century: I know what he answers to it: Its enough to prejudge the universal observation of it, in all Ages; and consequently it is not Apostolical.

The other place is in his Practical Catechism, where he confesses,

How often hath he charged us, with departure from the Universal Church, in rejecting, and not observing the Festivities of the Universal Church: &c. Sect. 12. and in that Sect. 45. I hope, upon second thoughts, he will be more moderate in his Censures; and find that his rash zeal for the Authority of the Church his Mother, and Tradition of the Ancients his Fathers, hath carried him beyond the bounds of Reason, and Religion.

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

§. 74. The Doctor now, for a conclusion, draws out some Quaeres, of his own to be considered and answered, by him, that shall undertake this business:

For an essay, this

§. 75.

But under favor, this is not the question now between us; For not only the Lutherans, but even the most rigid Calvinists, and Nonconformists (as they were called) do grant, provided 1. They be not too many, for number; nor 2. Imposed as necessary, to the prejudice of Christian liberty. Nor 3. made parts of the worship of God: and other like cautions and conditions, by them prescribed: And if the Superior Powers shall appoint such days, so qualified, this may secure both those that institute them, and those that observe them, from any crime of Superstition. Its more then probable, that they who first appointed those days, in memory of the Martyrs, in their particular Churches, intended no more, but on such a day yearly, to commemorate, the Faith and constancy of those holy Sufferers, as with thanks to God, for his Graces in them, so to the Encouragement of other Christians, to imitate their virtues; But after Ages soon grew Superstitions, in their Number, in their use and end: These abuses were foreseen by the Reformed Churches, and thereupon, either the Daies were rejected altogether, by some; or cautioned against by others; especially, by this Church of England; as all do know. But when this last generation of misdevout men, began to exceed in the honor, estimation, and observance of those remaining Festivalls, especially this of Christmas; equalling them with, if not preferring them above the Lord's day, (as was said before) &c. then those that were conscientious, and tender of the Worship of God, began to oppose such inchroachments upon it, who formerly did observe the days; and others, that thought they had Power in their hands, did lay them aside, upon these reasons. It were too long, to instance the particular Superstitions, not only of the vulgar people, but even of many Divines, discovered in their Practises and Discourses against the Lord's day, and for the Holydaies: None that I know, or have met with, have manifested more ways of being Superstitious, in this Subject of Holydaies, than the Doctor in this discourse of Festivalls; as hath been made appear, at the end of the sixteenth Section; to which I refer the Reader, and proceed to his second question.

§. 77.

&c. Wherein the Doctor takes for granted, these things, which he hath not proved.

1. That this Festival is of so ancient Institution,

Apostolic, or 2. a Primitive Institution, nor 3. Of Catholic observation, till at least the 400. year, by his own confession.

2. That it is

When at most, it is but a thing Indifferent in its use, and in its Abuse, by Superstition and Willworship, more than unlawful; impious

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

And so I come to his last question, which is this:

But here again, the Doctor takes for granted, what he hath not proved, viz. That the only ground of truth, or only true ground of abolishing this Festival, was the Riot committed, in the following days; whereas the principal charge against it was, the Superstition, and Willworship, attending the observation of it; though the Riot and profaneness of the following days, might justly add an Aggravation to them; and call for a Reformation.

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

1.

2.

3.

if Superstition be an excess of Religion, as we have proved it to be.

4. If so, then,

to abolish such an Institution; as Hezekiah did the brazen Serpent (which had a better Original and Author) for the Superstition and Idolatry cleaving to it; and as Saint Paul did the Agapae, the Lovefeasts for the profaneness crept into them.

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

Hic existimamus Regulam illam habere locum:

Errata.

Pag. 1. l 2. for Translation. r. Tractation. l. 18. for all r. ill. l. 19. for work and worker. r. worm and canker. p. 2. l. 14. put in First, before Table. p. 3. l. 8. for partly r. particularly. p. 4. l. 12. r. defines p. 17. l. 21. for since r. sin. p. 10. may r. Superstitiosiores. l. 19. r. others worshiped. p. 19. l. 4. a fine dele a God. p. 25. r. l. 3. for when, r. then. p. 27. l. 1. for their. r. then. l. 3. r. institution. l. 4. for our r. one. p. 28. l. 12. for bear they. p: 30. l. 5. for matter r. rather. l. 9. put in, must dist. l. 5. a f. r. Math. 15. p. 41: l. 19. for not. r. but. p. 45. l. last. r. context. p. 46. l. 6. a f. for toiles r. wiles. p. 41. l. 18. r. Teachers. p. 45. l. 20. for these r. the p. 52. l. 23. for there r. here. p. 65. l. 17. r. therefore. p. 66. l. 2: r. transform. p. 69. l. 1. r. outdated p. 78. l: 18. for lo. r. Lord. p. 81. l. 9. r. abhors. l. 18. r. hear. p. 82. l. 5. a f. r. among p. 84. l. 11. r. voiding. p. 85. l. 3. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & l. 14 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 86. l. 11. r. works. l. 19. r. Hasidim. p. 88. l. 12. r. contradistinction. p. 96. l. 8. a f. r. distinction. p. 98. l. 12. for now, r. nor. l. 22. for his r. this. p. 100. l. 5. for again r. often. l. 8. for we r. he. p. 102. l. 3. a f. for there r. this. p. 108. l. 13. for trase, r. trash. so. l. 16. p. 111. l. 4. for rod, r. rode. p. 113. l. 17. r. binds. p. 116. l. 7. a f. r. affirming. p. 119. l. 3. r. Karaei. Title pag. at end for vincimur, r. vincuntur. p. 123. l. 6. after mnde; put in, a double inference. p. 129. l. 11. for above. r. about. p. 132. l. 3. a f. for plead, r. placed. p. 166. for raising, r. ruining. p. 167. l. 17. for distr. r. destruction. p. 175. l. 2. a fine, for is r. as. p. 176. l. 1. for Fast r. Feast. l 13. put in I.