DIATRIBE TRIPLEX: OR A Threefold Exercitation, Concerning 

1. Superstition.  
2. Will-worship.  
3. Christmas Festival.    
With the Reverend and Learned Dr HAMMOND.  
BY Daviel Cawdrey Preacher of the Word, at Billing-Magn. in Northamptonshire.  Col. 2.4.8. 
4. This I say lest any man should beguile you, with enticing words.  
8. Beware lest any man spoil you, through Philosophy, and vain deceit, after the Tradition of men, after the rudiments of the World, and not after Christ.  
LONDON, Printed for John Wright at the Kings-Head in the Old-Bayley. 1654.   

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 abominable to God, (though some men account them rather their virtues, than their crimes) is as demonstrable; and hath been demonstrated elsewhere. 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 savour put upon them. 
Pref. to 6. tracts.  The Reverend Doctor (with whom I deal) takes it very heinously, " that the crimes of Superstition and will-worship, should be charged upon the late Government and Discipline of the Church, and the ceremonies and observances, either prescribed or customary among us. Particularly, 
Of Fest. s. 26.  that any should charge his Christmas Festival (as it was of late observed) with those two crimes, besides the Riot attending on it. He will not (by his good will) grant, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 marvel, if the matter be as he makes it seem to be; For first, 
Of Superst. sect. 2.  for Superstition he says, it is most clearly according to the use of the word, Superstitum cultus, the worship of some departed from this World, alive in another, which though he grants, justly charged on Heathens and Papists, and properly called Superstition; Yet not on Protestants at all: Or if Protestants be guilty of any Superstition, it is only of one kind, that is, To affirm (as a false Teacher) God to command, 
Sect. 46, 47, 48.  when he doth not command, or to forbid when he doth not forbid. And secondly, as for Will-worship, that's far from a crime, in his opinion; it's nothing but voluntary worship, as innocent, as the Freewillofferings, allowed by God in the time of the Law; 
Sect. 9  the more voluntary, the more acceptable. Which assertions, if they be true; it will be easy for him, to vindicate his Festivities, from those charges laid against 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 Doctor's mistakes, 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, etc.) 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 Religion, than 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 adding to the commands of Christ, the Gospel's rule, those things which belong not to it, and so is not an exceeder in the fear and service of God. Of Superst. sect. 46. And this is the first ground of the Doctors mistake.  
4. The second is, That excess in Religion, is not well called Superstition; or that Superstitiis on not an excess of Religion. Sect. 27. etc. 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 it's 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, under the notion of Nimiety or excess, because that man adds to the commands of Christ. 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. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or will-worship, is nothing but voluntary worship, as innocent as the Freewil-offering, etc. Which seems a contradiction in adjecto; that voluntary worship and uncommanded, should be innocent. For 1. It's 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 that's sinful. 3. Why is the worship of Angels, of Saints, etc. criminal? but because it was worship invented and added by the will of man; but that's 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, That a Church or particular person, hath power to institute & observe, worship not commanded by God. 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 Doctor's Misprisions, and are more largely showed 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's 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 the consecration & observation of the day, to be a part of (uncommanded) worship; the day to be more holy than other days; as holy as the Lords day; places virtue in it by pleasing God by it, and of more acceptance because voluntary, &. (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 judgement of the indifferent Reader, when he hath seriously considered and weighed, what hath been, and shall be spoken hereafter.   

OF SUPERSTITION.  
Section 1.  
IN a just and Methodical 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 Doctor's way) from the Names and senses by them given; (they being apt to mislead themselves and us, in this search,) as by the judgement 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 Schooleman, A vice contrary to Religion, 
Aquin. 22. q. 92. a. 1.2.  in the excess, (as profaneness is the other contrary, in the Defect.) Not that a man can be too Religions indeed, in the commanded worship of God, 
Dr. Ames. in medul. on second Commandment: Aquin. ibid.  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; when a man tenders worship, either to whom it is not due, or not in that manner, which he ought. 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, 
Superstition is that which adds humane endeavours to divine precepts. Vrsin. in 2 precept. More than is appointed by the law of God. D. Fulk in Act. 17. s. 4. Worship without God's commandment. M. ●erk. on the second Command.  when there is a Nimiety, or excess in any of these. For the Discovery whereof, we must observe, that the Commandments of God, having every one 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 Gods 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 Gods designed Sabbath is neglected, and an excess, when men institute other Holy Days and Times, as Jeroboam did, 1 King. 12.32. He ordained a Feast,— like unto the Feast that was in Judea. 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 Schooleman; who makes but three kinds of it, Idolatry, Illegitimate worship, and Divination. The first and last whereof, 
Ibid a. 2. in corp.  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 Gods with him: And Divination, being a consulting with the Devil, is a giving of that honour to him, which is due only to God, and so the worst kind of Idolatry; So he limits Superstition, 
D. Ames. Medul. on the second Commandment.  only to two Commandments. But I find another Reverend Doctor, restraining it to one Commandment, viz. the second, when he designs it thus. Superstition is (a vice) whereby undue worship is tendered unto God. 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 worshipping of many Gods, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, too Superstitious: He means (says our Doctor) they worshipped more Gods than other people. 
Sect. 11.  And the Worshipping of Angels, Col. 2.18. with the true God, is an Excess against the first Commandment, 
Will worship. sect. 20.  yet by the Doctor himself, is called, that crime of Superstition. Again, when Baal's 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 Gods Name in vain. And lastly, when jeroboam made a Feast day of his own head, and Papists dedicate Holy days to Saints; 
So called by Plutarch. sect. 19  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 labour 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 somethings, 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. Touch not, taste not, handle not; which was Superstitious Negative willworship.  
§. 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, 
Sect. 29.  thus: In things indifferent, it is as criminous and superstitious, to place piety in the Negative, as in the affirmative; in not kneeling as in kneeling, in abstaining scrupulously from ceremonies, as in using them as scrupulously. Thus fare 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered by our Translators, by Superstition: Act. 25.19. and elsewhere; 
The worshipping of these (as amongst Papists) is most properly called Superstition: Sect. 3.  And this may be, either when men worship many Gods, or only one (with the true) and for this the Athenians are called too superstitious, Act. 17.22. or else, when they have an excess of fear, or being afraid of God, when they need not, as thinking themselves bound, as from God, when God neither commands, nor forbids; Of this kind, is the doing or abstaining Religiously (i. e. upon pretence of Divine precept, or prohibition) from those things, which the word doth neither command, nor interdict. 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 worshipping God thereby: When men have a slavish fear, or hard opinions of God, than they are justly called Superstitious.  
§. 8.2. That which is more strictly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, Eremitical and Monastical life, Pennances, Pilgrimages, etc. 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, 
Ridiculous ceremonies turn it into evil: willworship, sect. 25.  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 Days, Churches, Vestments, etc. Jeroboam was deeply guilty of this Superstition. First in consecrating Chappells and Priests, for his Golden Calves, in Dan, and Bethel, and then in consecrating an Holy Day, and Annual Feast, unto his Gods, like unto the Feast in Judah (of God's appointment) the month which he had devised of his own heart: 2 King. 12.9.32, 33. or as the word is, created, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 fare from an higher degree of perfection, that, in the judgements of the best Divines, it deserves not the name of Martyrdom: Or else he must intent 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. etc. I have peace offerings with me, this day have I paid my vows, which were free willing offerings, as not commanded; Come let us take our fill of love, etc. q. d. though I have run into debt, by my former whoredoms, I have now satisfied God with freewillofferings, 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. etc.  
§. 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, meats commend us not to God; for neither if we eat, are we the better (in ourselves, or better accepted with God) neither if we eat not, are we the worse (or are less, and less accepted with God) 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. The placing of more virtue in some things, than either Naturally, or by the rule of God's word, or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church may be thought to belong to them, is guilty of a Nimiety. His instances given, are very pertinent and considerable. 1. Placing virtue or force in the sign of the Cross, 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 baptised, without. 2. The women's parvula evangelia. 3. opus operatum, the common Superstition of all natural men, and Hypocrites. Concerning which, his judgement is good. The doing of which, is either groundless, and then it is folly: or else it fastens some promise on Christ, which he hath not made in the Gospel, etc. But why he should add, 
See infra. sect. 34.  In the estimation of the purer ages of the Church, 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, 
Sect. 1.  and consider what he says about it. And to his first Section, we say: It may be true, that some may unjustly be charged with the crime of Superstition, by ignorant or malicious defamers of others best actions. But it is as true, that some that think themselves assured in conscience that they are fare enough from the guilt of it, 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 fare enough from this crime, in their highest will-worships, 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. Superstition in latin, is most clearly, 
Sect. 2.  superstitum cultus, the worship of some, departed from this world, supposed to have life in another. Sect. 2. That the Heathens so defined it, is true, and that the worshipping of such then, and by Papists now, is one kind of Superstition, 
So the Dr: in sect. 3.  we have already granted; as being the Worshipping 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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; Superstition is a vice contrary to Religion, in the excess; which may extend to the other Commandments, whereas this limits it to the second.  
§. 17. The Greek word for Superstition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; though it seems to come nearer the Doctor's 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, Tyrannical, etc. as the Doctor's words, dreading the Gods, as so many Tyrants, sect. 13. a cowardly trembling fear; a care & fear of evil spirits, 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, 
For fear of vengeance: as sect. 24.  to please and propitiate their God; which may well be called Superstition, or willworship; 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the three first, Poetical Gods, Angels, or Deadmen, or indeed any thing, but the one Supreme God. 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. When Paul tells the Athenians, Act. 17.22. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he means they worshipped more Gods or Daemons than the Romans, etc. or were more devout, more pious, in their worships than any others. If (say I) they were so called, because they worshipped more Gods, than they were Polytheists against the first Commandment; If, because they were more devout or pious (impious rather) in worshipping the true God ignorantly, in a false manner, than their sin was against the second Commandment; and in both it was Superstition, in several kinds.  
§. 20. What Festus meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 25.19. is not much material; its like he spoke it with scorn enough, not of Paul's only (as the Doctor seems to limit it) but of the whole Jewish Religion; 
Sect. 12.  (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; of one jesus that was dead, putting him under the vulgar notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or dead Heros, and so meaning the worship of him by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, I doubt, a strain of the Doctor's Criticism; compounding things, which are in the Text distinct. For Festus says, they had many questions, both concerning their own Religion (Superstition) and also, concerning one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive, but not a word there, of worship of him, as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Heros: which may the better be believed, because he was accused of questions of their Law. cap 23.29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, etc. v. 5.6. But the Doctor having taken liberty (as oft he delights to do) to vary from the common Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their, rendering it by (his) and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reading Religion; to qualify, at least, Superstition; he goes on to make his Comment suitable; that Paul's Religion was, in worshipping of jesus as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or dead Heros: Whereas Paul affirmed him to be alive, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are not much Solicitous; The Doctor having showed 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, 
Sect. 17, 18, 19  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. That they were tied by their Superstition, as with a net; that when they were invaded, 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. Their kill and sacrificing their Children to Moloch, 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 he commanded it not, neither came it into his heart, as somewhere he says) it was a kind of Superstition, against the second Commandment. And in a word, the Etymologist speaks fully our sense. The word among the Heathens is taken for a good thing, but among Christians for impiety. 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. 
Sect. 27.  First that it is inconsequent, that Superstition simply and abstractly taken, should be resolved in all Authors, to signify somewhat which is evil, that since particularly, which is false worship. But, (with his favour) 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, 
Vulg. superstitiones Act. 17.22.  and render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Superstition; without any pretence of a good sense of it; which, no doubt, they would be glad to hear, to colour, and cover their own Will-worship, and Superstition. The Doctor's reasons for his opinion, have been considered afore, but briefly now again; 1. Those that use the word, to express their own worship, conceive it to be a creditable word, or else would not call it by that name. No doubt, but Heathens did think well of their own worship: But it being a false worship, it was never the better for that. 
See Quaer. of divorce. sect. 58. Blaming this in another.  And it is observable, that in all the Doctors former large discourse, he brings only Heathens, to show the meaning of the word (bade enough sometimes) but not one Divine, Greek or Latin Father, or any Modern 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 when Saint Paul's Religion was called by that name, Act. 25.19. it appears not that Festus did use that word as an accusation, or in an ill sense, but in general to signify Paul's Religion, etc. 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 spoke of it, 
Superstition was made matter and reproach to the Romans. sect. 22.  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, Saint Paul himself, Act. 17.23. saith of the Athenians, they did worship the true God though ignorantly taking him for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And is not worshipping 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. 
Than other men, is the Doctor's gloss; it may as well signify, more than is meet, and that's too Religious in the excess.  He calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more Religious than other men, not in relation to any vicious rite, but to their worshipping the unknown God, which worshipped others not. But this, as it begs the question, so is it against the text itself. I perceive that in all things you are too Superstitious, both in their worshipping of so many false Gods, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 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. I consider and behold you in all things (or in all that I see in you) as men more superstitious than others, 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 Gods, 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. He saw the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, given to Idolatry, or full of Idols. And the vulgar rendering the word, ver. 22. by Superstitiosiores, too Superstitious, cannot intent it in a good sense; yea the Doctor Sect. 31. grants that Superstitiosus in the Positive, signifies Excess more than in the Comparative.  
§. 23. The second Inconsequence (he says) is this: 
Sect. 28.  That the use of Ceremonies, or rites in the worship of God, if not distinctly prescribed, either by the example or precept of Christ, should be called Superstition, and for that condemned. 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, 
Sect. 29.  is a worse mistake; That men on pretence, and in the name of Piety, should abstain from some observances (indifferent) as Superstitions, either because commanded by lawful authority, or abused by Papists. 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, 
Sect. 30. 31.  that Superstition may, and doth in some authentic writers, sacred especially, signify a Nimiety, or Excess in Religion. What says he to it? First he confesses Superstitiosus may denote such excess, but so also doth Religiosus, but then Superstition denotes it no more, than Religio. Agreed, for Religion itself 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. 
A. Gellins. Sect. 32  Gellius dreamt, as an ill Judge of Superstition.  
§. 26. If so used by some Authors, yet he can say much against it, 
Sect. 32.  as 1. That some, not of the meanest ancient Heathens did it, on the ground of Epicurean Divinity. 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. For Christian writers, the use of a word in that sense, is so slight and casual, that not sufficient to fasten an ill character upon it, etc. 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 it's proved by this Topick, by most of them, because it is an Excess in Religion, and illegitimate worship. 3. That those that come home to the point, are so few and modern, and of so small authority, that scarce worth producing, with slighting and scorn enough spoken; But why then doth not the Doctor in all this discourse give us the names of those many, Ancient, Authentic Fathers, etc. 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, etc. says, Than it must be reduced to these two sorts, as consisting either in the degree, or in the number of Actions, in quality or quantity, we consider what he says to both.  
§. 27. First, in the first kind, 
Sest. 33.  he denies there is any such excess; There is no possibility of being Religious in too high a degree, praying too fervently, too often, etc. But what says he to the arguments of the great Schoolman, 
Aquin. 22.9.92. a. 1.  who proves Superstition to be an excess in Religion? and withal shows how he means it. Not because Superstition does yield more to divine worship, than true Religion; but because it exhibites Divine worship, either to whom it ought not, or in that manner it ought not. 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) their fault was not their excessive practice, but the laying that obligation upon themselves and others. 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) the fault is the neglect of the duties of our calling, not the excess of devotion. 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, that's 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 separating that Excess, from these neglects or omissions, and then it would not be criminous, to pray continually, is not feisable in this life; unless he could find a man, that had no Calling to labour 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. That the frequency of prayer could not be Superstitious, unless the worship and institution itself were Superstitious, 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, 
Sect. 34.  into the service of God, when he says, 1. By this it is granted, the rites and ceremonies themselves are not superstitious, but only the multitude. But first, we shall say, that multitudes of rites and ceremonies, are prejudicial to the simplicity of Gospel's 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, 
Sest. 35.  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, etc.  
§. 30. Of this kind, are those three sorts of significant ceremonies specified by him; 1. 
Sect. 36.  When it naturally signifies the thing, or floweth from it, as lifting up the eyes to Heaven, signifies zeal. 2. When custom hath made it significative, as kneeling signifies humility. 3. When it is set to signify something else, either matter of doctrine, as standing between Easter and Whitsuntide to signify the Resurrection, or matter of fact, etc. 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 practised as necessary, or making the observers more Religious than others, or more acceptable to God, etc. 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, The sole reason why the old Jewish ceremonies are interdicted us Christians, is, 
Sect. 36:  because the observing of those who foreshowed Christ, and teaching the necessity of them, would be the denying of Christ to be come. 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: Christ (says he) would have us free from old ceremonies of Moses, 
Cham. Tom. 3. l. 15. c. 16. sect. 8, 9  because they were figures of the new Testament, and so to cease when the thing is come: But it follows not, we must have no ecclesiastical Ceremonies or laws, because we have not those. To which the learned Chamier replies: There was another cause of abrogation of those ceremonies (though Bellarmine concealed it) viz. because they did load the Conscience, with a yoke of multitude of Ceremonies: and this is common to those, and to the Traditions of men. But we say further, 1. The false Apostles did acknowledge Christ come in the flesh, joining Circumcision, etc. 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 etc. 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, than 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, etc. would not the Apostle have blamed them for that also, as too Superstitious?  
§. 32. But the Doctor gives his vote, to the old Rule; Ceremonies must be few and wholesome. Few, for many reasons, which we approve as good. 
Sect. 38.39.  But then at last, in a manner grants, they may be many, if they be wholesome, not only negatively, as harmless, but positively as tending to edification, and then little reason to accuse them of excess: for then more probably help devotion, then encumber it. 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 judgement 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. he is not allowed to be a competent judge, of indecency in them, much less of the number or wholesomeness 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, 
Sect. 42.  that vulgar wits are not capable of them: You distinguish of such Acts, wherein that excess is supposed to be: that they are either ordinable, fit, or proper to that end, the service of God, or inordinable, unfit, etc. What ordinary man (who yet hath a Conscience to be satisfied in the worship of God) is capable of these distinctions? He confesses there are great store inordinable, unfit, unproper, of these in the Church of Rome? Yet they are not of the Doctor's opinion; but think them all, both fit and necessary. But yet he hath a salve for such. In this case, though any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault, yet still this not the fault of Superstition; but rather of folly and vanity, etc. 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? many such like things ye do; Mar. 7, 8, 9 full well ye reject the Commandment of God that ye may keep your own Tradition: In vain do they worship me. Let the Doctor show his dislike of such, as he will, yet if men may be judges, what are fit for number and wholesomeness, 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: For suppose they be but few now, yet we must consider, how many they may be hereafter; seeing the Authority is given to every succeeding Church or Pope, to constitute ceremonies or ecclesiastical laws, as they shall think fit; and so the yoke never certain, but always growing; 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, 
Sect. 43.  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) with the title of Superstition, and then extend it to those things which have no such fault, and so run the circle. 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.  
§. 
Sect. 45.  34. The placing of more virtue in some things, than either naturally, or by the rule of the word, or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church, may be thought to belong to them: as in the cross, etc. We spoke something in general to this, 
Sect. ●4.  but now we shall assume, of all those Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, unfit, improper, etc. 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, or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church? 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 Doctor's words, in part. The doing of such, is either groundless, and then it is folly; or else it fastens some promise on Christ, which he hath not made in the Gospel. 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 an excess of fear, or being afraid of God, when we need not; as thinking ourselves bound, when God neither commands, nor forbids; abstaining religiously, etc. 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 Doctor's reason well, here; because such a man adds to the Commands of Christ (as the former to the promises) annexed to the Christian Religion, those things which belong not to it, and so is an exceeder in the fear and service of God, etc. And this is Superstition. Sect 47. And this he confesses is a culpable and criminous excess, not in doing what God commands not (for that may be innocent enough) but in affirming God to command or forbidden, what he doth not, etc. 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, That this way of dogmatizing; 
Sect. 47: 48.  or imposing as necessary such things as the Law of Christ hath not made necessary, is the special and only kind of Superstition, which he believes, any kind of Protestants to be guilty of; it is a great mistake. For 1. he granted another kind. Sect. 45. In placing more virtue in things, than naturally, or by the rule of the word, belongs to them. 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, of observing ominous, inauspicious events, unlucky days, etc. 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, Because men place holiness in some observances, amongst us, 
Sest. 49  which (what ever may be said of it in thes●●) in hypothesi or application to the particular cases, is generally very false, or impertinent. We shall consider what he says for it.  
§. 38. 1. He asks, what is meant by holiness? real inherent holiness, or only separation from common uses? 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, By whom, and how fare any thing, is thus separated; either by1 Christ, 
Sest. 51.  or2 the Apostles, or the3 universal Church, in purest ages, or the4 particular Church (and rulers thereof) wherein we live, or 5 if free, by our own Act. 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 Separations, to be only gradual; but we suppose it to be specifical, at least, between the Separation 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 any thing 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 efficatious 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, etc. In this sense none but God alone, can Sanctify and Separate any thing, to Holy, from common uses. All which the Doctor either takes no notice of, or takes as granted, others may do. For he says, The way to discern, whither we exceed (that is, be Superstitious) in any of those afore, and place more holiness than is due to them, is to account them holy, in a degree proportioned to the authority of him that separated them. 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 Separation, differed much from that of the Universal Church, & the rest, as much as Divine & humane. 3. The precept or example of the Universal Church (as it cannot be demonstrated ever to have concurred, in making any thing holy, there never having been an Ecumenical Council, truly so called, so) cannot make any thing 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 any thing properly Holy: which the Doctor doth not at all undertake to prove. Only thus he goes on; If that which is thus separated, be by Christ himself, I shall count it holy in that degree, and myself obliged by virtue of Divine precept, and so of the rest; and then I offend not. But 1. I suppose the Doctor will account himself obliged to an Apostolical institution, by Divine precept also: I had thought Apostolical 
* Ho thought and said so, in his first Quere, sect. 22. The Apostles Doctrines and institutions, are so owned by Christ himself, that what is truly A postolicall, is immediately and by necessary consequence, divine and infallible Sect. 52.  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 Humane; but something between both. 2. By this distinction of his, the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition, in placing Holiness, in things, times, places, etc. by borrowing the Doctor's answer; They may say, they account them holy, but either by the authority of the general, or particular Church of Rome, and that is no Superstition, says he, say they.  
§. 40. But he goes on, If my voluntary oblation, I perform as a voluntary oblation, and only expect that God that hath promised to accept such, will accept it; all this while I am not blameworthy. 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 2d. Commandment, to such worship. 2. The Dr. may remember, that Sect. 45. he blamed that for Superstition, when virtue is placed in some things, which naturally, or by the rule of the word, does not belong to them, and gives the reason Sect, 46. because that adds to the promises of the Gospel, and fastens a promise on Christ which he hath not made. 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; In case of resolution, and vow, add that respect in my performance, which is due to such, and I am not blameworthy. If he mean, that his resolution and vow, makes his voluntary oblation more accepted; he adds to his Superstition, to second Will-worship 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, etc. to be a special worship of God; which he rejects. If he say, their Vows 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.  
§. 
Sect. 53.  41. It is not then the straining of these any degree above their rank, as elevating an ecclesiastical constitution into a Divine precept, etc. 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, etc. 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 done so, and so the thing is Superstitious, and must be forborn, Sol. 1. 
Sect. 54.  The ill use of a thing will not corrupt a thing commanded or an innocent thing. 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 forborn. 2. He says, there is nothing to oblige me to abstain, from that, which they have Superstitiously used, unless danger of being thought Superstitious as they, or making others be so; which is not Superstition, but scandal. 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 Will-worship, 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.   

EXERCITATION THE SECOND, OF WILL-WORSHIP. WITH DOCTOR HAMOND, BY D. C.  Math. 15.8, 9 
This people draweth nigh unto me, with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.  
But in vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrines, the commandments of men,  August. de consens. Evang. lib. 1. c, 18. De 'em sic colere oportet, quomodo ipse se colendum praecepit. 
London Printed for John Wright at the sign of the King's Head in the Old Bayley.   

OF WILL-WORSHIP.  
Section 1.  
HAD the Reverend and learned Doctor (as it became him) distinguished the words; either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, or Will-worship in English, before he began his Defence 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 than it was not so much the ill-Fortune (as he calls it) as the just punishment of them, to pass under an ill notion, and to be taken for somewhat reprovable, as well in a Christian, as in an Heathen. For the sum and scope of the second Commandment, 
August. de consens. Evang. l. 1. c. 18.  in the Affirmative part, being this. God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship, and in the Negative part, to forbid all devised worship of God, 
This is acknowledged by the Doctor: God is to be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him, & appointed by him. Apend. on 2d. Commandment.  by the wit, or will of man. 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  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 Adversary,) that is, devised and imposed worship, by the will of man, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are but twice a pe●ce, used in the book of wisdom, and always in an ill notion: 2. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself, being but once used in the New Testament: it is, (by the judgement of most Interpreters, Protestant and Popish) taken in an ill notion, as shall appear hereafter.  
§. 3. What the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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: The Apostles discourse in that place, is (says he) of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines of men, teaching some things to be forbidden by God, that he forbiddeth not. 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, 
Bez. in locus.  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 establish the Colossians against them: Which that it may appear, let us review the context, from the 4. verse downwards. Thus he gins: This I say, that no man should beguile you, with enticing words. In the Greek, they are more significant; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Put upon you Sophistical Paralogismes; 
In locum. The word Philosophy seems to me to be all one, with worshipping of Angels, v. 18. says the Doctor; Superstition. Sect. 7.  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 toils, and ways, whereby Seducers did beguile their followers. 1. Philosophical speculations, having a show of much wisdom; ver. 8. Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy; an instance whereof is given in the 18. ver. in voluntary humility, and worshipping of Angels. 2. Traditions and Inventions of men, superadded, or continued in the worship of God; an instance whereof is in the 20.22. ver. Why are ye subject to Ordinances, after the Commandments, & Doctrines of men. 3. Mosaical Ceremonies, revived, after they were abrogated by Christ: of which he speaks, ver. 16.17, His scope in all, is to dispute against all rites and Ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church, as parts of Divine worship, 
D. Daven in locum.  as necessary duties of holiness, and righteousness and as binding Conscience. 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 Not holding the head, but after the Commandments, and Doctrines of men, ver. 22. Whence it appears, that the Reverend Doctor seems mistaken, when he says; Where yet you must observe, he doth not speak of Commands, but Doctrines, i. e. not of the prohibition of the Magistrate, etc. but of false teachers, imposing them as the commands of God. For the Apostle speaks expressly, these impositions, Touch not, taste not, etc. were after the Commandments, and Doctrines of men, ver. 22. 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; which things have indeed a show of wisdom, in Willworship, etc. But are after the Commandments and Doctrines of men, 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; That they urging some abolished ceremonies as still in force by divine precept, should thereby deny Christ to be come in the flesh. 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 worshipping Angels was for certain ver. 18.) and to put it upon God, as an acceptable worship.  
§. 4. That we have not mistaken the Doctor's meaning, will appear by that which he adds, about the difference betwixt making of positive humane Laws, in indifferent things, and urging or teaching things for Divine commands, which either never were commanded by God, or else are now outdated by Christ: The Apostles discourse proceeds of the latter, etc. 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 worshipping 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, 
Sect. 3.  That if the Magistrate should teach or impose Doctrines of men, upon others, as the Commands of God when they are not, he should thereby incur the censure of a false teacher also; 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 etc. 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 than 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 any thing 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. All this (said David) the Lord made me to understand in writing, by his good hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern, which he ascribes to the Spirit of God, ver. 12, 13. & cap. 23.27. by the last words of David, the Levites were numbered from 20 years old, of which he says, the spirit of the Lord spoke by me, 2 Sam. 23.2, 3. But this by the way.  
§. 5. The full importance of the words, ver. 22. (he says) is this; That when those abstinencies are imposed and taught, as divine obliging precepts, this is an abuse of them (which were otherwise innocent things) and that abuse of them dangerous or destructive. But 1. why doth he refuse our Translation of those word, which all are to perish with the using? For the verb, from whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is derived, signifies sometimes, simply, to use. 
Estius in locum.  And the Civil Lawyers take Abusus, for the consuming use, ordinarily: 2. Wither 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 worshipping of Angels, in a voluntary humility, etc. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 otherwise they were innocent things, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports) in a pretended humility, and not sparing of the body, etc. For he says, they have a show of wisdom, not as the Commands of God, but in Will-worship, etc.  
§. 6. Yet let us hear, wherein the Doctor, places the danger and destructiveness of them. That they were after the Commandments, and Doctrines of men; which words point out that, wherein the danger doth consist, to wit, imposing on men humane Ordinances or Doctrines. 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 worshipping God by those Abstinencies, touch not, etc. 
The abstinences they teach Sect. 7.  I think the Doctor will not deny it: For it is not to be meant of imposing of Humane 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, humane Ordinances and Doctrines, to worship God by. The Doctor's gloss of his own former words will now prove his own, that is, singular, when he adds i. e. those things which though they were not commanded by God, are yet by men affirmed, pretended and taught, (though without proof) to be so commanded. The danger and destructiveness 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, A description of the doctrines themselves, or the abstinences they teach, abstracted from all such accidental abuse. But this may prove a mistake; for the words rather contain a description of the reason of that danger and destructiveness, 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 pretention of Humility, and self-denial, 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 Doctor's Interpretation of it, is singular, without any precedent, either Ancient, or Modern, Protestant, or Papist. Thus he paraphraseth the words. Which things have some true, at least appearing notion of wisdom in them (wisdom in Scripture signifying piety) i. e. have either some real matter of piety in them (for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies) and this would be more clear, if we should read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two words, thus, which things have somewhat of piety in them, or being considered in some respect, have piety in them, or as the Fathers rather understood it, some colour, some appearance of piety, to wit, in voluntary worship and humility, etc. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by piety, is as strange, in this place, (however in these Proverbs, and elsewhere, 
D. Davent in locum.  it may signify so) when most interpret it 1. by Wisdom: that is, a show of some excellent doctrine, rather brought from Heaven, than found out by men. 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 Worshipper of Angels, was puffed up in his fleshly mind, that is, in a carnal conceit of his own wisdom, in finding out that way of worship: For Superstition and Willworship ever pretends to Wisdom, 
Vid. Irenaeum lib. 3. c. 2.  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 Gods; 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. Not with enticing words of man's wisdom; but in the demonstration of the spirit and power: the wisdom of God, etc. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, which things have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some show of wisdom, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quidem, 
Estius inlocum.  which is ●n extenuating particle: They have indeed a show of wisdom, but not the truth: Or they have indeed a show of wisdom, but in Will-worship and Willhumility, etc. It's true, Interpreters differ about the placing of the Adversative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Some understand it to be understood before Willworship, as afore; some at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: they have a show of wisdom, but are yet of no price or worth. 
Beza.  Herome thinks the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power of it. However, the Doctor did not well to conceal this particle; and to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by voluntary worship, having not yet told us, what he means by it: of which anon.  
§. 8. That the last part of the verse, not sparing of the body, not in any honour, to the satisfying of the flesh, is added to show, that there is somewhat of true or pretended piety, in those former Doctrines, by the contrariety, to that tending and filling of the flesh, 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; That this interpretation which he hath given, is the most prompt, proper, and genuine rendering of the verse, that will be met with, and thereupon infers, and resolves," that there is no ill character set upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Willworship, by the Apostle in this place, which we shall examine, when we have heard, what in his judgement is noted by it, which is this; That voluntary Worship, or acts of Religion, which the Hebrews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nedabah, the Freewilloffering, which was not required of them, by any obligation of particular law, and yet was not wont to be condemned, or suspected, but accounted as acceptable to God: under which head, the Abstinences here spoken of, may not unfitly be comprehended. 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, etc. and also these Abstinences were commanded by special Laws, but Free-will-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, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used in a good creditable sense, which he endeavours by 6. Arguments, Sect. 11. Because Willworship, is here joined with two, not only lawful, but laudable Christian virtues. 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, 
Panstrat. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 5.  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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Doctor's Arguments, to prove it taken in a good sense. First, because it is joined with Humility, which being by Calvin, (a man not much regarded by the Doctor in other things) interpreted in this place, the Reverence both of God and men, is no doubt a Christian virtue, and cannot defame the Willworship, to which it is associated, etc. But by his favour, 
In affectâtaque humilitate, quae affectatae Religioni conjuncta est. Estius in locum.  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. 
Sect. 23.  of which he says hereafter, it was an impious kind of Mistaken Humility, 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, Because it is joined with punishing or not sparing, or (as Calvin) mortifying the body; which as an act of selfdenyall, cannot be acceptable to Christ, and as a species of of Revenge, 2 Cor. 11.7. 
In praepostera & in solita quadam obstinenti● & afflicticne corporis. ibid.  Will deserve to be numbered among the effects of godly sorrow. 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, etc. 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, etc. He cannot say, because they held those forth as Commands of God, for that they deny: than it must be, because they make them worships of God; Voluntary worship, yet that the Doctor, endeavours 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 far 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 abominable to God.  
§. 12. The second reason of his good sense, is this, Because these Doctrines are here said, in respect of the Willworship, to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, somewhat of wisdom or piety in them: which somewhat, if real, than it is parallel to that of 1 Tim. 4.8. bodily exercise is a little profitable still, or profitable for a little. Before I add the rest, I say to this: 1. This somewhat real matter of wisdom, in willworship, in the judgement 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, Bodily exercise profiteth a little, or for a little. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is hurtful and abominable; and so is the Willworship in this place. The Doctor seems to place the illness of those bodily exercises, in this; when they are taught as necessary, to the defaming of marriage and meats, 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, etc. but as an acceptable worship of God; would the Doctor say, they were not hurtful, and abominable, 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, etc. 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, For can any thing be said to have so much as a show of Wisdom, in respect of Willworship in it, if that Will-worship pass confessedly, either for foolish, or impious? Let him ask all Interpreters, who render the words, a show of Wisdom in Superstition or affected Religion, how this can be: But I cannot but wonder at the Doctor's 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.) Can any thing be represented to me, as having so much as a show of piety, in respect of rage or lust discernible in it? 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 Saint James) which may have a show of true zeal, and yet be nothing but rage and madness? must I needs suppose somewhat really of wisdom or piety, in that passion, or else it cannot have so much as a show of wisdom, or piety? To conclude may not the Devil himself transfer himself into (and so have a show of) an Angel of light? 
Vid. Append.  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; Which things have a show of wisdom and of Willworship, and of Humility and of not sparing the body. 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, They have a show of wisdom, in Willworship, and in Humility, etc. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. do no more enforce us to take it in a good sense, than, when we say, Judas made a show of love to his Master, in his traitorous kiss; and the Papists devotion, in bowing to stocks and Images. 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. A third reason is, because the Greek fathers, though they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of appearance, as contrary to power and truth, yet they paraphrase Willworship, &c, by words, of Good Savour: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He seems to be Religious, but is not so: Oecumenious; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pretending (as Hypocrites) Religion in worship, and is there any gooduesse in hypocrisy? But the interpreter of Clemens Alex. renders the word, in Religion: Why? is not Religion itself of various senses? The simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, often signifies false Religion, and superstition, as well as true. But the composition, makes it worse, and altars 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? 
Ps. 106.39 Went a whoring with itheir own inventions.  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, Hierom, Superstitionem, Theodoret, (a Greek Father) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 locum.  In a word, Estius gives this interpretation of the words, out of Augustine and Thomas: Which have a show of wisdom, not true, but such as is placed in Superstition and humility, which is false wisdom. I leave all to the Doctor's consideration.  
§. 14. The fourth reason, because by this way that very obscure place, may be conveniently understood, which hath posed so many: viz. That such Doctrines are destructive of Christian Religion in obtruding humane out daded judaical constitutions, for Divine precepts; as still obliging, and yet in some respects have piety in them, at least a show of it, to wit, in Willworship, etc. 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 Doctor's 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, Bellarmin, 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 Humane 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.  
§. 
Vide Append. ad sect 15.  15. A fift reason, because Hesichius renders the word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary Worship, the very notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, voluntary gifts or offerings; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 humane Authors, the derivatives, and compounds of this word, do express the Freewillingnesse of the person; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. yet that will not help the Doctor, 
Any thing else beside what God hath commanded. Sect. 16.  who doth not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Scripture is taken for a vice, Eph. 5.4. which in Aristotle is used for a virtue. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is so taken in the best judgements. Nor is this, the notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used by the 72. for Freewillofferings, voluntary gifts, etc. as shall appear in a place more convenient.  
§. 16.6. Reason itself assures us, that things done in the service of God, are not therefore ill, because they are spontaneous, but on the other side, when a man shall out of a pious affection do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept, this action of his, is to be accounted so much more commendable and acceptable to God, etc. 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, 
Voluntarium cultum, non m●ndatum a deo, sed illi oblatum humama voluntate, etc. D. Davent in loc. Deus amat cultorem voluntarium, sed odit cultum voluntarium. Ide. vide plura:  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 abominable: and herein, (contrary to what the Dr. here asserts) the voluntariness of it, defames the worship, it being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the irregularity of it, and imputable to the action itself; Math. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, etc. Again, when a man out of pious affection, shall do any thing 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 abominable to God. But the Doctor adds; there being no universal negative in Scripture, prohibiting all things and degrees of things, besides what are in particular commanded. 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, that piety is one of those virtues, which have such a compass, that the larger they be, they are so much more commendable, and the more spontaneous, the more acceptable. 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 owne devising, the first step in it, and least degree of it, is far from commendation, or acceptation; because you are so fare 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. That the vulgar Latin renders it Superstition; and Calvin and Jerome follow them; whereas the truth is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the word for Superstition: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies it no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is used in a good sense. But might not a man say as much for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself, as the Doctor says for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and bring the Doctor himself for his voucher? Does not he tell us, in his other Tract, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes is taken in a good sense. 
Of Superstition. Sect. 22.  For Religion or worship of God without any mark set upon it of true or false, and rendered by Superstition, Religion, etc. It seems then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Superstitio are both taken in a good sense, sometimes for Religion, and in a bad sense other times, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and they agree in an ill sense sometimes, and this helps not at all; to vindicate the word.  
Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself 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. 
The worshippers of Angels cannot be freed from the crime of Superstition says he.  Superstition or Will-worship, is more general than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that's 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. Let's try the next.  
§. 19 Another reason is, that among the Jews, all was to be done according to the pattern in the Mount: so some have resolved, that no rite or circumstance, no degree of worship may be used in the Christian Church, but what hath Christ's example or particular precept to authorise it, etc. But the Doctor much mistakes the question himself, while he is labouring 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, that what ever worship is not commanded by Christ, or justified by his example, is censurable under the title of Willworship, though otherwise in respect of the matter of it, it would not be censurable. 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, We may justly conclude those actions justifiable, because not prohibited, and not only so, but also acceptable and the more acceptable for the voluntariness, etc. 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 Will-worship (in our sense) is prohibited, as we often said. As for his gloss upon the words of Photius, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Divine lawdoth forbidden.  
§. 20. A third ground of the abuse of the word, is the affinity of the 18 verse of this Chapter; and so the Wilworship here, is guilty of all the same charges, etc. 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 the error that brought the greatest part of Idolatry into the world, was, that men conceived and taught, that vain worships and superstitions, were the will and pleasure of God; 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. Let no man beguile you of your reward in Will-worship of Humility, and in neglecting of the body, etc. 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. That the words are not in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath with the 70. a sense, which ancient writers have not taken notice of. viz. pleasing himself in worshipping of Angels, or proud of a feigned humility as Hierome, etc. 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 Mediatours: Is not this the very plea of Papists at this day, for their, Invocation of Angels and Saints?  
2. Take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asunder, and for pleasing or delighting, 
In iis quae non vidit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 festuosus incedens. Eras. in v. 18. Qui jussa tantum facit nihil agit non vulgare qui transcendit praecepta, hic Angelus est etc. hic Deum sibi obaeratum facit D. Davent in loc. Vid. Append. s. 23.  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, etc. Did not Jeroboam (think you) much please himself, and pride himself, in his politic Religion of the Golden Calves? Are not all Superstitious and Idolatrous worshippers, delighted with their Willworship, especially the first Devisers of it? insulting not over others only, as more Religions than they. Lo, I thank thee, I am not as other men, etc. I fast twice a week, etc. But also over God himself, as making him beholden to them, by going beyond what he commands?  
3. Why may not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Composition, signify the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, asunder? self-pleasing worship or Religion; His Clemens, joins them together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; will worship of Humility. That is observable, which Estius notes, on the place, the 18. verse; that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also; volens in humilitate, i. affectans humilitatem, & volens in Religione Angelorum, 1. affectans, etc. a voluntary humility, that is, affecting humility and a voluntary worshipping of Angels, that is, affecting that worship: For this the Apostle signifies, in the 23. ver. by composition of the words, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And it is as if he had said, let no man beguile you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: In Willhumility and willworship of Angels; which the Doctor allows us to call, Willworship and an unlawful thing, a mistaken impious Humility, Sect. 23. and Sect. 20. That crime of Superstition. And so in this ver. 23. we may apply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to all the 3. Willworship, 
Estius in loc.  Wil-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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 the 18. ver. was to be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also; but to teach us also, how to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 23. ver. viz. for Worship affected, and sinful; and humility affected, etc. as well as in the 18. verse:: that is, in the Doctors own words, unlawful, Superstitions, impious, worship and Humility.  
§. 23. But he adds the second observation, The will or delight in the 18. ver. is fastened on unlawful things, viz. worshipping of Angels, etc. including an impious mistaken kind of Humility, (call this will worship, or what you please) yet is it true still, that voluntary worship, where the matter is perfectly lawful, not forbidden, nay, 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 unlawfulness, 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 forbade: 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 itself lawful: they did but worship God in a lawful matter, why doth the Apostle blame them for this? (as he doth) if the Doctor's assertion be true, That voluntary worship, where the matter is lawful, is far enough from any tincture of ill? It will not help him to say, if not forbidden, nay approved by a general precept, for let the matter be never so lawful, yet in Willworship it cannot have any general precept to approve it, 
Being the willing of that, which God forbids: his own words in this sect.  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. The 4. occasion of the mistake, he says, is the use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Epiphanius, attributed to the Pharises. This is generally taken in an ill notion, yet finds a patron of the Doctor, to defend, or palliate it: I shall not much labour about it; but truly, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hear so ill, the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superfluous, to it, will make it here worse. Let's hear what he says for it.  
§. 25.1. If it were a denotation of some ill, it would not prejudice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the addition in the middle, noting Superfluity, (perhaps, some unlawful, or luxuriant matter, 
Supervacaneam religionem sponte assumptum, sive affectatam si● Estius in ver. 18  taken into that worship either prohibited object, or noxious, at least burdenous ceremonies in number or quality) might turn that into evil, which the voluntariness, or uncommandedness of them, were not able to do. 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 Saviour charges them," In vain do they worship me, etc. and that's Superfluous worship: And the uncommandedness (if there were nothing else) in a matter of worship, turns them into ill, and abominable. For this is the sum of the second Commandment, God must be worshipped, with his own prescribed worship; and consequently, all uncommanded worship is superfluous, vain and sinful; as hath oft been said.  
§. 26." But secondly he says, I cannot acknowledge that word is taken by Epiphan: in an ill sense: though that was the Interpretation of their name; they might be ill men, yet the name might not signify any ill thing. etc. who would think the Pharisees should find an advocate, being such notorious Hypocrites? The very name of their Religion, argues them proud, vain, superfluous worshippers, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Saviour would not have condemned them so oft, so sharply, for both these, if the words might have had a good sense or notion.  
§. 27. The truth is, the main crime of the Pharisees, was their censorious proud despising of other men, whom they thought not so godly as themselves. This is another of the Doctor's mistakes. Their main crime was that, which was the occasion of that despising of other men, 
Math. 23.  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: Luke 18. 1. trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and despised others. Their strictness in some particulars, neglected by others, was not so much in morals, as in ceremonials of their own devising, in washings and Fast, 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 lose in far greater matters: Or if they ought to have done their own Traditions, why does our Saviour so bewoe them, so often, for doing of them? And yet the Doctor says, Their strictness in Religion, is far from being itself any ill character or blemish upon their voluntary religious performances, wherein their superlative strictness did consist: Their Superlative strictness consisted chief in the observation of their own Traditions, even to the avoiding of the Commandments of God by them, 
Mat. 15, 6.  and does this leave no blemish upon them? I say no more, let him consider it.  
§. 28. His third answer for the Pharisees is; That the Original of them, was from the Hasidaei, so called for their excess of charity, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and voluntary performances above what the Law required of them, and so differed from the Karraim, who did that only which was commanded by the Law, etc. It's likely to be so: But when he says, these were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he renders, such as in their obedience performed voluntarily some things, which the Law required not, and so differed from the Karaei. 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 colour for the Pharisees and his own voluntary worship: whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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, 
Populus volunta tum.  Now in this sense the Karaejs, were also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wellminded, or voluntarily devoted to the Law: But this word, differs much from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for those Freewill offerings allowed in the Law, as the 70. render the word: yet in this sense, the Karaejs, I doubt not; were as well devoted, and as wellminded to the Law, as the Hasidaejs: 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 Saviour 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 Saviour 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Scaliger says) came to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their voluntary worship came to be necessary, and form 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, etc. The application is very easy, and very observable in the new Pharisees of Rome, 
Testivalls of the Church, sect. 16. ad fin.  and all Superstitious Willworshipers, as shall be exemplified in Hypothesi, in another place. Yet the Doctor thinks by this means to vindicate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from any ill sense; as they that offended not in the Will-worship, but in Dogmatizing; which yet is not imported in the word; and he does indeed condemn it; we may justify the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But I desire to know whether Will-worship, I mean, devised worship, in any one man, be not sinful, though he never come to Dogmatise, 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, concerning those voluntary oblations under the Law, to which he hath often paralleled his voluntary Worship, by him understood in this text, sect. 9 etc. wherein he propounds three observations.  
But before we deal with those observations in particular, we shall lay down the Nature of a Freewilloffering, and show wherein the Formality of it did consist, which the Doctor hath neglected to do. A Freewilloffering may be so called, two ways.  
1. In regard of the Freewillingnesse of the mind of the offerer; Exod. 35.29. every man and woman brought a willing offering, whom their heart made willing to bring it, etc. But this Willingness 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, Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy Heart, etc. 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, 
De Repub. Habr. l. 4. c. 17:  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, 
See Ainsw. in Levit. 7.16.  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 Lion, of beasts, or a Vulture or Eagle of Fowls; But only some one or other of those three kinds of beasts. Beefs, Goats, Sheep, 
Ainsw. on Levit. 1.2.  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, etc. which is the express reason, of that Law, Levit. 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, than 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, etc.  
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, 
Act. 11: 19 See sect. 32.  1 Cor. 16.2. Let every man lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, viz. for the poor.  
3. Where the choice was allowed, and taken, as of a Goat, or a Sheep, etc. 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, etc. to make it necessary to offer a Sheep, and unlawful to offer a Goat, etc. 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, Levit. 22.20. not maimed or blemished, etc. 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, etc. And herein only, or chief 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 parallels 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. That they were a part of the worship and service of God, when they were performed, and therefore avowed by those general precepts, which respect that worship of his. 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 Provisoes of God himself. For, I ask; If God had not declared his allowance (besides 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 showed 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. That they were not particularly commanded, by any particular command of God's Law, but were left to every man's liberty (except in case of a vow, which yet it was free for him not to make) and so were spontaneous, not necessary. 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 authorise 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, Levit. 27.13. that if he would offer to change his oblation, he must add a sift part more to it.  
3. There is a Law, Levit. 22.20. not to offer them maimed, or blemished, whence appears they were voluntary, and yet allowed and accepted. They were to be offered, because allowed, and because allowed, therefore accepted, not because they were voluntary only. By'r what will the Doctor infer from all this? That he cannot see, why there may not be somewhat in Christianity, of the same constitution also, voluntary, and not particularly imposed, and yet allowed by, and acceptable to God. This inference, I fear, hath toomuch of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an abundant superfluity of willworship, 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; vows and freewiliofferings were part of the worship of God then, therefore they are so now: And this seems reasonable to the Doctor in the present case: He cannot see, but there may be somewhat of the same constitution now, 
Chamier T. 3. l. 20.7. c. 5. s. 25.754. Chemint. Exod. A. 3. p. 50.  etc. When as Divines resolve against them, that the worship of God then, was far different from the Worship of the Gospel; 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 any thing a part of worship, whence his second inference is like the former; He cannot see, why he that doth any such thing, may not be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the oblation or action itself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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, that whatsoever may, by the Doctrine of the Gospel, appear to be acceptable to Christ, and yet is not commanded, by any particular command; or which is commanded for the act, but not for the specification of it, to time, or place, or degree. 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. God commanded not David to build him a Temple, nor to make tender of that service, 2 Sam. 7.5. Yet David's intention in that design, though exceeding Gods Command, is very acceptable to God; 1 King. 8.18. This is one of Bellarmine's arguments, for their Religious vows; and it's fully answered by learned Chamier thus: 1. 
Vbi super.  This was in the time of the Law or before Christ; but the times of the Gospel give no such allowance; Freewillofferings 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 worshippers: 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, not taking hire of the Corinthians, when he might, and calling it matter of boasting, etc. is as little to the purpose, if not less; for it is not in a matter of Worship, but an action of common life (as himself speaks) yet it is also a mistake, to call it a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free will offering, when it was a due debt: For so Chamier answers Bellarm. objecting this place for works of counsels, 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, That they that preached the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 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. That I make the Gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel. 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  offering.  
§. 31. The like may be answered for the other instance: He might (says he) have abstained from going up to Jerusalem, Act. 21. a Prophet told him, that bonds expected him there, ver. 11. and in that case to fly was justifiable, by Math 10.23. yet Paul would needs go up, ver. 13. that was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again. Some answer, this was an Instinct or Heroical motion of the Spirit, (which the Doctor discourses against, Sect. 35. etc.) 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, that though they be commanded in general, yet the quantum, how much every rich man should set apart, is not defined, etc. 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. 
Sect. 42. see pract. catech. p. 141. 2. Edit.  The Doctor himself confesses its possible for a man to offend (in charity) either in too prodigal a giving, against prudence, or in too parsimonious sparing, against piety. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Freewill offering: Besides, in his section, the Doctor says, that there was a proportion, among the Jews, which they were obliged to, which was called their Righteousness, which performed, satisfied the obligation of the Law, and that which exceeded, was abundance or excellency of goodness, or mercy. True, there was a proportion set, by a special Law, (lest men should give nothing) but there was also a general Law, to give according to Gods prospering of them, 
See practic. Catech. 2. Edit. Deut. 16.10.17.  and their ability; as 1 Cor. 16.2. cited by the Doctor, as an appointment 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, etc. 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, etc. (except any of these be by God himself commanded in special;) they are not to be accounted properly worship, but circumstances, Rites, etc. 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, Will-worship; 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, etc.) The matter of it is commanded, to wit, prayer, but not the frequent reiterating of it daily. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Freewill offering. Himself seems to expound it, by twice a day, morning and evening, at least, and says that a Christian now may do well to improve it in public and private to six or seven times a day. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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. In that the precept belongs to all, the grace to none but him that hath it (and not obliging him neither, unless the matter of it, be sub praecepto all ready, and he obliged to it, by some other command.) 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 Talon, is given on purpose to improve, as well as a precept; This is clear as in 1 Cor. 12.7. The manifestation of the Spirit, is given to every one, to profit withal, and in 1 Pet. 5.10. So in the Parable of the Talents, the scope whereof is, That whatever Talon any man is be-trusted with, the intention of the Donor is, that he should improve it, to his advantage, though he lay no command particularly upon him: And the not using of it, is punished severely: Take him, and cast him, etc. for he acknowledgeth his Lord did expect the improvement; I knew, etc. what's the second difference?  
2. Because it is the design of a precept, to lay an obligation, and that sub periculo animae, if not obeyed; but of grace not so, but only to strengthen and incline, which he that makes use of, as he should, is promised a reward, etc. 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, Take him and cast him into utter darkness, for not using his Talon? and is he not threatened with loss of his Talon, for not using it? and is not that a punishment for some sin? yes, but its clear by Saint Luke, 19.13. that there was a precept of occupying; to which the punishment was apportioned, True, but had here been no such particular precept, yet the Gift itself employed that duty of employment, and therefore Matthew leaves that out; And there he acknowledges presently, I acknowledge, that the bringing God no re-return of all his grace, is a great and a damning sin. 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 then, that comes not home, to to prove it a sin, to omit the doing of any one particular, in that degree, which Gods grace enables me to do; there being no obligation ad semper, or ad gradum; to do it always, or in such a degree. But surely, as grace itself, so any measure or degree of grace (being a Talon also) requires a proportionable return, to that degree.  
The Lord, in the parable expected an increase of of one Talon, for his one Talon, 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, let's do good, etc. and so the degree of the grace, binds to a gradual improvement: To whom more is given, of him more is required, is express Scripture; And this expression of the Doctor, that there is only an obligation ad speciem, not ad gradum, that is, that the thing be done, 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, etc. He answers, That every man is not bound under pain of sin, to be prudent, or pious, or merciful, in such a degree, etc. 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. 2d. 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, It's possible to offend against prudence in too prodigal a giving, and in too parsimonious, against piety; but yet would evade the decision of the just proportion, two ways.  
1. The possibility and danger of such faults in the extremes, proves not the unlawfulness or necessity of any other degree within those extremes, but allows a latitude, within which a man may be more or less merciful still, and yet prudent too. 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. Though prudential considerations do direct, yet do they not always command, or lay obligations upon us, and therefore still compatible with voluntary oblations. 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. That prudence, knowing the greatest perfection, to be most gloriously rewarded, would advise and bind a man to aspire to perfection, and not to content himself with any thing but the best. 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 itself: 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, etc. But let us consider his answers.  
1. Though prudence do advise one to this, yet doth it not lay any command, which hath power of obliging, so as not to obey it, will be presently sinful, etc. 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, Though it is prudent to use those means which may advance us highest in glory, and perfection will do that, yet 'twill not always be prudence to undertake the way of perfection, because that being an high steep, may be also a dangerous way; every man cannot receive it, etc. 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, Every man cannot receive it, that he means it of the Romish caelibate, * or Virginity, or Martyrdom, the rather because he adds, For him that cannot overcome the difficulties to resolve upon the course, 
Which is not commanded, any but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection.  may perhaps be precipitious, etc. 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: 
Quaer. of Divorce sect 36. It may be a duty sometimes not to aspire to some perfection. Sect. 45.  That in the undertaking of the way of perfection, even the precept of God may interpose sometimes, and trase us, and make it unlawful for us to aspire to the most perfect state. 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. As if the discharge of a duty of our calling should await us on one side, and an opportunity of martyrdom, on t'other side, then in that case obedience is better than that richest Sacrifice, as in Cyprians case, etc. By this its evident, he means not the perfection of Holiness 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 traces 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. 
See pract. Cat. 2 Edit. pag. 98.  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, That if there be a willing mind, it is accepted, according to what a man hath, not according to what he hath not. And his reward (for aught 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. But than thirdly, the perfection we are commanded by Christ to aspire to, is capable of degrees; as in charity or mercifulness, Mat. 5.48. for so expounded Luke 6.36. 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 fare culpable; and than it will follow, that there can be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no voluntary oblation. 
Epist. 62.  Let him hear St. Hierom speak our sense in this, Charitas quae non potest augeri, etc. Charity which cannot be increased as long as man lives here, is in no man; but as long as it may be increased; truly what is less than it ought to be, 
* In vitio est.  is faulty; by which faultiness there is no just man on earth, who doth good, and sinneth not. 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. If there be any perfection attainable in this life, 'twill be capable of degrees, and growth also. 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. If it be not acquirable in this life, 'tis certainly not under Evangelicall precept now; that light and supportable burden, that rod of not grievous, i. e. possible commands, which Christ, & his grace brought into the world. 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 judgement with them of Rome, and sticks not to charge the Law, before Christ, with Imperfection. Hear his words, Pract. Catech. pag. 94. 2 Edit. The Law & Commandments of God had before some mixture of Imperfection, but now have none; had before some vacuities in them, which now are filled up by Christ. 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 lest 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. etc. 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, Christ came to perfect the Law? in his Catech: supra pag. 93. and to set it higher, than before? And yet is he certain and confident, perfection is not under evangelical precept now? 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) so light and supportable, the rod of command, so not grievous, i. e. possible? let the Doctor answer the question himself, in his Catech. p. 95. It is made lighter by Christ, 1. in taking off that unprofitable burden of ceremonies, that had nothing good in them (durius dictum.) 2. in respect of the damning power of every least sin or breach under the first covenant, to the believer taken away in the second. 3. in regard of greater strength given. etc. 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 endeavour after perfection, first our failings shall be pardoned, 2. and our weak works accepted, through Christ our mediator. But still perfection, (though not acquirable here) is under Evangelicall precept.  
§. 47. Whence it is apparent, that that so plausible assertion (as the Doctor calls i●) that every one is bound to do that which is best, is not (as he) disernibly false; but visibly true; For if the Law (and Gospel also) require perfection of obedience, in every Commandment, than 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. He that giveth in marriage doth well, and he that giveth not, doth better. 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 itself, 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, he that giveth not in marriage doth better, but doth very ill. 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; That the best, being a superlative, supposes the positive to be good; whereas if all were bound to do that which is best, that which were only good, were evil; for so is whatever comes short of what we are bound to do. 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, 
Greg. moral. lib. 9 c. 1.  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 districtè judicetur.  
§. 48. The next Objection raised by him, helps to confirm the former answer; The Law is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, soul, strength, etc. which implies the utmost endeavour, to perfection, in all our obedience, He answers, that that phrase denoteth only two things. 
Sect. 49.  1. sincerity of his love of God, as opposed to partial divided love or service: 2. the loving him above all other things, not admitting any thing in competition with him, or in such a degree of love. 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 innocency; 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 fare faulty, in vitio, as Hierome said, above.  
But what shall we say to that Instance of Christ himself; Who, we know, did never fail, in performing what was man's duty in prayer, or any thing else; yet at that time, Luk. 22.24. prayed more earnestly; which is a demonstrative evidence, that the lower degree, is not necessarily sinful, when the higher is acceptable to God, which when it is granted, there will be no doubt but these freewillofferings, will be reconcileable with that command; and so room left for a voluntary oblation. But we say to this, This example of Christ, will not be appliable to men. For Christ was above the Law; and did more than 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 fare 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 freewilofferings, 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. etc. And this makes way for another, and the last objection; That if it be granted possible for a Christian, to do more, than he is commanded, he may then supererogate, as the Romanists teach. The Doctor answers.  
1. There is a great difference, between offering, that a man may do more than is commanded; and that, he may do something which is not commanded; The former supposes him to have done all commanded, the second may be true, though in most, or all other things, he have been wanting: He asserts the second, not the first. 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; That to supererogate supposeth one of these two things, 1. either that the person spoken of, hath paid God all that is due to him, by way of perfect obedience, i. e. hath never sinned; or 2. that having sinned, and so become a debtor, he hath paid that debt, by satisfaction, by doing something else, which may satisfy God, for his sin, etc.  
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, etc. 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 labouring to prove for many sections together. As for the second, the Doctor disclaims the Doctrine of satisfaction, and so consequently, (so fare) 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 supererogatory, 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 Hasidaejs, and the Haraejs, 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 which God by such works, for themselves and 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. When in the service of God, a man out of a pious affection shall do any thing else, beside what God hath commanded, by any particular precept, this action of his, is accounted so much more commendable to God. And elsewhere, The more voluntary the service, the more acceptable. 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, The more voluntary, the more abominable. 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 a part of prudence, to aspire to the most perfect state, that is, (as he implies) Martyrdom, for his reason, because that is the way and means, to advance us highest in glory; Sect. 43, 44. Knowing the greatest perfection, to be most gloriously rewarded; 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, His Doctrine forbiddeth any the most justified man, to pretend toward satisfying for others, but to work out his own salvation, with fear and trembling, i. e. with all the Humility in the world. This may be true in the Doctrine; but in the Practice, I fear it tends to pride, and scorn, to teach men, That to do things not commanded, will make a man more acceptable to God, and purchase him a greater measure of glory hereafter, than to do things only commanded by God: 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.  
FINIS.   

EXERCITATION THE THIRD, OF The FESTIVALS of the CHURCH.  
And particularly of CHRISTMAS.  
By D. C.  Gal. 4.9, 10. 
But now after you have known God, or rather, are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?  
You observe days, and months, and times, and years.  Cypr. Epist. 73. Frustra nobis, qui ratione vincimur, consuetudinem opponunt. 
LONDON, Printed for J. Wright at the sign of the Kings-head in the Oldbayley, 1653.   

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, worshipping of Images, etc. 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, etc. to avoid offence, 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, We (we) have no such custom, nor the Churches of God. 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. The present Church (of Rome, suppose, or any Church, some century, or more of years after the Apostles) hath such or such a custom; ergo we must receive it, unless we will be counted contentious. But this is thought a good inference: The Apostolical purest Church had a custom to observe the Lords day, the first day of the week, Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. instead of the old Sabbath; ergo that day was instituted by the Apostles, and they that reject it, or profane it, are more than contentious, even sacrilegious. 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) than the inference is strong against him. The Apostle, & prime Apostolical Church had no such custom as the observation of Christmas; ergo they are contentious who plead for its continuance. It matters not then what the ancient usage of the Church of England hath been; if it began not with the Apostles in the first Churches: Which, of the Feast of Christ's Nativity, 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 gins with: And that it is thus ancient he will prove, By one objection against, viz. the retaining of some heathen usages, in the observation of it, which are undeniable Testimonies of the Antiquity and uninterrupted continuance of this practice, even from the time of our first conversion: For otherwise, it is not imaginable how any heathen usage should be found adherent to it. 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, etc. The Apostles (says the Doctor) to attract the Jews to the Christian Religion, 
Sect. 71.  did gratify them in retaining many of their customs. That was for a time, but after cast them off. And this Festival being substituted instead of the old Saturnalia, in the same Month (as is confessed by many, 
Sect. 63.  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 no part of the office of the Feast, yet do they fully hold out these two things;  
1. How easy a thing it is for such ill usage, to creep into humane Ordinances.  
2. How hard it is, to get them out, when once got in, being ready to plead prescription. Seeing after so long a time as fifteen, or sixteen hundred year's continuance (as the Dr. thinks they still attend the Festival; people being more tenacious of customs, received by the Tradition of their Fathers, 
1 Pet. 1.18  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. It may be believed, either Apostolical, or very near the Apostles times. Feign would he have us think it was by some Apostle, if he knew how to make it out. Some affirm it was Simon Zelotes, Sect. 6. And there was some colour for the affirmation of Simon Metaphrastes; That St. Peter stayed in Britain sometime, converted many, and constituted Churches, & ordained Bishops in the twelfth year of Nero's reign. But he slurs his Author thus: The authority of this Writer is not great. He might have said, Nothing worth, being contradicted by so many others, and by the Doctor himself, by and by. Yet it might be near the Apostles times by some Apostolical men; some say rather by Joseph of Arimathea; for so. Mr. Camden reports (from as ancient Records, and credible as any we have; for we have none very ancient or very credible, That Joseph of Arimathea planted Christianity here coming out of France. Belike Crescens sent him hither to convert she 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, What is so early affirmed in Scripture of the communicating of the Gospel to France (i e. by Crescens) which is so near to us, removes all improbability from those Histories which record the plantation of the Gospel in these Islands in the Apostles times. It's 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) is an evidence, that neither Peter nor Paul, nor Crescens, nor any of those that usually accompanied either of those two Apostles, did bring the Christian Faith to this Island. He might have added, Nor Joseph of Arimathea, nor Simon Zelotes, upon the reason there by him given. The Affirmation of Gildas, that this was in Tiberius' Reign, was mere Tradition, and fare 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 Centurie, above 200. years after Christ, And it's very likely, Christianity was planted here, in some parts, some time before them. But it's 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 honour to our Nation.) This was done (say Historians) in the time of Eleutherius, then Bishop of Rome, who lived towards the end of the second Centurie. And his Epistle to King Lucius (if that be Authentic, 
Sir Henr. Spilm. council. Brit. p. 16.  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 Doctor's Margin, 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 baptise them; who accordingly, sent Fugatius and Damianus. Now if Christianity, had been planted here from the Apostles times, or by Apostolical men, it's not probable, that they left no Presbyters here to baptise, 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. Dioclesian's 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 festivity, that Dioclesian slew 20000 Christians assembled together, on that day: though the Author of that report, is of no great credit.  
§. 6. The celebration of Easter, by the ancient British Churches, contrary to the custom of the Western Churches will give little light, to the main question, concerning the first Plantation of the Gospel here, by the Apostles, etc. 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, were such as in the Apostolical times, kept their Easter after the Jewish manner. For the Eastern Christians commonly kept it so, but not in the Apostles times. Which the Doctor takes for granted; but is 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 fare were they from Institution of them, as Christian Feasts, that they do expressly repeal them, and cry them down.  
2. 
Lib. 5. c. 22.  Socrates the Historian says, The Apostles were not solicitous, to appoint any Festival days at all, than not this of Easter.  
3. The difference of the observation of it, in the Eastern, 
See Lo Falk. reply. p. 99  and Western Churches, makes it evident it was not Instituted by the Apostles: for than 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; Christmas day is called in our old Monument, Midwinter day; whence it may reasonably be concluded, that when that name was first applied to that day, Christmas day was in the Calendar, either coincident with, or not far removed, from the Winter Solstice: and we continue to call the 24. of June, Midsummer day; half a year from the 25th of December.  
How sweetly all agree? John Baptist was conceived, six months before our Lord, and and so born six months before him: Hence the Feastmasters, plead his birth on the 24. of June, and his, and our Lords on the 25. of December.  
1. But I would be satisfied, which is the Older Festival, that of John, or this of Christ? It's observed by Chemnitius, 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 Baptist till towards the 800. year; Or it may be they were both appointed about the same time: upon supposition then by the Western Church, that our Saviour was borne on the 25. of December (as the Doctor says) and the Feast of Nativity settled upon that day, either they or some others, placed the Feast of john Baptist on the 24. of june; that all might correspond.  
2. If the names of Midwinter day, and Midsummer 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) that it must be soon after our Saviour's times, that this day was capable of that appellation, and consequently that the day was here celebrated so early. For it might be, a good while after, so called, when the Island was first converted, which was not, (as we have discoursed) till towards the end of the second Century.  
3. It is confessed by the Doctor, that Midwinter day is a fortnight sooner than our Christmas day; the solstice being about the 11. of December. Then say I, they kept not Christmas day, on Midwinter day; for that's 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 Saviour's days (as the Doctor says.) For if they had instituted such a Feast to the honour of our Saviour, they would all have agreed upon the same day, in all places, as they did, in observation of the Lords day, for our Christian Sabbath.  
§. 8. Upon those his premises, he draws out two corollaries or Characters, set upon this, or any other Christian Solemnity, Easter, Pentecost, etc. of immemorial usage, in this Nation. First that the antiquity of it, doth no way argue, that it hath any thing of the corruptions of the Roman See, adhering to it, but the contrary. To which we have partly spoken afore; and now 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 Festivals (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, That any such ancient usage of this particular Church, if it had no other ground to stand on (as its foundation) or concurrence of all other Churches (as pillars) to sustain it, were a very competent Authority for the continuance of such a practice in this Kingdom. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for its authority, as subordinate to no Foreign Patriarch, yet we justly question, (though the Doctor do not) whither it be invested with such an unquestionable power to institute what Ceremonies it please, 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 temereity 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 unquestionable power of this or any Church is, to constitute Ceremonies for its self, (as it shall judge most useful, most for edification, and most agreeable to the Analogy of faith) which consequently may not, without great temerity, be changed and abolished by any. And then, whither this Feast be a Ceremony of that nature.  
For the first, the Authority of the Church, to constitute Ceremonies for its self; 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. etc. and charges us with separation and Schism, for departure from the Universal Church. 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) than 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 Humane 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 Dumb 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 Humane Institution. Then the question is this, Wither the Church, Universal for all Churches; or a particular Church, for her own members, have an unquestionable Authority to institute Significant Ceremonies, as parts of worship, which may not, upon just reasons, be changed, or abolished. This was the Question to be proved; but is 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 Gods commanded worship) what and how many she please, as she shall judge most useful, most for edification, etc. 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 judgement of Reformed Churches;) If the Church be allowed such a power, the mischiefs will be many. As.  
1. It's prejudicious to the simplicity of gospel-worship. 2 Cor. 11.3. the simplicity which is in Christ. That is, in the Gospel of Christ. 
Ceremonies burdenous in the number, might turn it into evil Will worship. sect. 25.  It was spoken with respect to the false Apostles, who by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 gaudy, 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, etc. without any thing like to that ceremonial worship, except the observation of the Lords day, and the two Sacraments, designed and instituted by Christ himself, or by his Commission: But if the 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 Non-significant ones, but those Protestants disclaim as idle fooleries: or significant; and then, either by nature, or Institution; Those of nature, need no Institution; If Institution be pleaded, it must be either Divine, but the Church hath nothing to do with them, they are instituted to her hands: Or Humane, but that's expreslly against the second Commandment; as hath been said elsewhere. God only can prescribe his own worship. Hence it was, that those Traditions of worship, introduced by the false teachers, are coudemned, because they were the Doctrines and commandments of men. Col. 2.22. which when our Divines urge against such kind of ceremonial worship, in the Church of Rome, as Humane Institutions, they have no way to avoid it, 
Vide Estium & Corne l. A lapide in locum.  but to say; Ceremonies instituted by an humane spirit, (as ours are) are there condemned, but theirs are instituted by the holy Ghost joining with their Pastors, in the Regiment of the Church, as the Rhemists speak, on Math. 15.9. and others more. And therefore Papists may better plead their binding power, than ours can 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: To put more virtue and efficacy into things, 
Of Superstition▪ sect. 45.  then either naturally, or by the Rule of God's Word is in them, is a nimiety, & so Superstition; but for men to institute significant ceremonies, for edification, to teach, and instruct, etc. 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 (than they needed not humane Institution) ergo, it is superstitious; and consequently the Church hath no such power.  
3. Grant her but such power, and there will be no end of Ceremonies; no man can tell where she will stay, 
Of Superstit. sect 38.  unless some bounds be prescribed in Scripture. The Doctor's 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 than 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 Lords 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; That such ceremonies, or Festivals established by a Church, 
That were to restrain our liberty, and to exchange one burden for another. So the Dr. of Superstition sect. 56.  may not, without great temerity be changed, or abolished by any. 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 it's 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 Lords 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 Lords day, but with more solemn services, with more abstinency from labour and recreations; as we shall hear our Doctor confess anon. We now consider what he says to prove the disusing of these Feasts .  
§. 10. These are part of that establishment which the Reformation in this Kingdom hath enacted for us by act of Parliament. To this we say;  
1. The Reformation formerly made in this 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 tenaciousness of old customs, received by tradition of their Fathers.  
2. This seems to grant that the Reformation, and so the establishment of these Festivals in this Nation, was made by the State, and not by the Church, which now is pleaded for.  
§. 11. Secondly, This, & other Feasts of Christ, are in the Reformed, especially the Lutheran Churches, still retained, and where they are taken away in some Churches, by some sober members wished for. We answer to this; The Churches that retain these Feasts (especially the Lutherans) are not reputed the best Reformed Churches, nor by the Doctor himself (I believe) thought fit to be compared with England, & some other Churches in Doctrine and Worship, and so no fit precedents 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 The whole body of their public devotions, is falsely said, now to consist, their prayers being as good, and as large as the Liturgies) it will afford him no more succour, than this; That the Authority then in being, commanding Vacation from work, they 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, is not an act of Division or separation, from either the particular Church of England, or from the Universal Church in all ages, especially that of the first and purest times: Not the latter for certain; for we have proved afore, the first and purest ages of the Church, did not observe it. Not the former, 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. The omission of Christmas sermons and services, tends not to raze out of the minds of the ignorant sort, the slender knowledge they have of the birth of Christ, and consequent mysteries of Religion For the Gospel being read and preached on, 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, 
Act 25:  was slender indeed, nothing but a Superficial (as he) notional, carnal knowledge of one Jesus (as that Roman Deputy spoke) that was borne at that time, to give men liberty to Feast, & be merry.  
2. This cannot (as he charges it) gratify their worldly affections, and assist Atheism, etc. but rather to keep it (as usually they did) in all Festival delights, (like the Revels 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 the necessaries of belief, for the vulgar sort are no more than the great Holy days of the year, spoke with as much, that is, as little reason, as their fellows the Jesuits, who say and affirm, that Images are the best laymens-books instead of the Scriptures.  
4. The ejecting of these Holidays out of the Church, will not any with dispatch the opinion of any necessity of believing the Articles of faith; (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 Holidays of themselves can do. And why not abundantly sufficient as it was, in the first planting of Churches, before these Festivals were invented? We have had enough experience, that in those places (Cathedral Cities) where those Festivals 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 profaneness, than in any Country Villages, where the Gospel hath been sincerely preached.  
§. 14. The Impatience of sound Doctrine, and readiness to embrace what ever is novel is not to be found in those of dee per, sound knowledge; but in the ungrounded professors of former times, made formal Christians by external Ceremonies, & outward Pomp of service: But those that endeavoured to Reform the abuses of Superstition and profaneness, are the men only, or chief, that propugne and maintain sound Doctrine; whereas those that were the greatest favourers of those Festvities, some of them, either are fallen into the propagating of error, Arminianism, etc. or at least do little appear to maintain the truth  
As for Hospitality and charity at those times, its observable in many strong pleaders for Christmas, that they are willing enough to abate the charge of the Feast, both then, and all the year after; yet no body hinders them from being Hospitable and Charitable.  
§. 15.5. What ever specious design was in the first institutors of this piece of Service to Jesus Christ (as after it is called) it matters not much. gideon's design, in making a Golden Ephod, was very fair, to leave a Monument of his Victory, as a pious public acknowledgement of his thankfulness, 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; 1. Of Will-worship because it is not commanded in scriptures. 2. of Superstition, in observing dates, 3. Of Riot frequent in such Festivals. The two former, (he says) he hath spoken to else where, viz. both in his Treatises of Will-worship and Superstition, and also in his practical Catechism: 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. In respect of those, who retain the usage of it, they observe it in obedience to the Laws of the Church, and so it proceeds from obedience to Superiors, a duty of the 5 th'. Commandment. 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 Holidays, but of their invocation of Saints, adoration of Images, and the Mass itself. They do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church, and so it proceeds from obedience to superiors, 
Vid. Append.  a duty of the 5th Commandment. But to the particulars we say many things. 
Pract. Catech. on 4. Commandment.  1. Did he not a little before found the Times or days designed to public worship, upon the equity or morality of the 4th Commandment? Hear what he says, of the Importance of that 4th Commandment; It is a designation of Time, for the special performing of God's public worship, and again, It is not only lawful, but necessary to set apart some times, for God's service, he means by that Commandment: Then say I, if the 4th 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. If the matter of the command were before commanded by God, 'twere then no longer obedience to the Law of the Magistrate, but only to God. 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 5th Commandment? What if Superiors be so profane, 
See Sabbath. Redevivum at large these things.  as to set apart no time for God's worship, or not to enjoin 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, Lords day, and others, only as a duty to Superiors in the 5th Commandment.  
2. He takes for granted, that the Designation of the sufficient Time, due and necessary by the 4th 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, so that it must not ordinarily be mixed with profane and common uses, 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 Days, as they shall think fit, and that ordinarily, in every week, or month, or year, without Sperstition, as an act of piety, which we suppose they cannot do, without prejudice to the 4th Commandment, and to Christian liberty; seeing the burden of Jewish Holidays is taken off, by Christ, and we reduced to the 4th 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 4th Commandment, and also guilty of Willworship, in holding up a Worship, not commanded by God, against the second Commandment.  
2. In respect to those who first instituted it, without command from others (in whom only it is called Will-worship) they are free from guilt too. 1. because among the Jews some Feasts were instituted, that of Purim, and of the Dedication, without command etc. 2. Freewillofferings of this Nature, are to be the more, not the less acceptable, for being voluntary. 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 Freewillofferings, we say.  
1. These Holidays of men's Institution, are not like those Freewillofferings of the old Law, as we have showed, 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 Holidays, are by him, made parts of Worship.  
3. Suppose the Jews should have made more Holidays, 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. when ye fasted and mourned in the 5. and 7. month, even those 70. years, did ye at all fast to me, even to me? And may not Papists, who have a Saint and an Holiday, 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 Freewilofferings, the more acceptable, because voluntary, and uncommanded? Let no man say, they dedicate those days to Saints, and Invocate the Saints, etc. and that makes them abominable: But suppose none of those, but the Holy days be (as the Church of England expressed herself) devoted only to the honour 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 it's 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; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Supestitum cultus, worshipping of Daemons, or souls of dead men; but its little less than blasphemy, to number Christ with them, etc. To which we say: For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Superstition; we have considered it in his Treatise of Superstition; and have found him granting the sense of them to be fare larger, than the Worshipping of Daemons: And we have proved it rather to signify any false, Superradded worship, not commanded of God, 
A Nimiety or excess of Religion.  as Super statutum, above the Law of God: In a word, any false worship of the true God; which is exemplified in many particulars there: amongst which, this is one, In placing the worship of God, or more holiness, in things, times, places, etc. then God hath placed in them. We shall consider what he says to vindicate this Festival, from it.  
1. The Birth of Christ, is a mercy of such excellent quality, that it can never be overvalued, etc. 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 Lords 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 fix another day.  
2. The exercises done upon the day, are acceptable duties any day, therefore upon this. True, but then any day, whereon these duties are done, is as holy a Day, as Christmas day: or if he think, the duties are more acceptable for the Day's 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. Because a duty cannot be performed without time; 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 4th Commandment, to be only an Adjunct of worship, as of any other action; but we think Time in the 4th 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, etc. a part of worship, 
Sees. 48.  (which they are every day, when they are performed) but the very Dedication, and observation of the Day itself, to be a voluntary oblation, a Freewilloffering, an honour and service to Christ; as we shall hear.  
2. Abraham (says he) rejoiced to see this day and the Angels rejoiced on the very day, etc. 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 Lords day being appointed for that end.  
3. The abstaining from labours, 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 than it presupposes a Command of God for those Duties and Days: Or if the Time be only an Adjunct of those duties, than Rest is necessary only naturali necessitate, not moraljs; because no man can solemnly for any time wait upon God in holy duties, and his labours too. But this is necessary any day, when holy duties are performed.  
4. For the 25 th'. day of December to be the day of Christ's birth, we shall speak to it hereafter, ad sect. 36. Only we observe what he says, upon the mistake of the day: That the mistake will be very pardonable in those, who verily think, they are not mistaken; They do perform the business of the day, as completely and substantially on a mistaken day, as on the true one: and the excuse of blameless ignorance, will wash away greater errors than this, if an error. 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, There is no danger of it, to one that fimply believes it is, and worshipping after his wont manner? For in such things, humane certitude is sufficient; So jacob's lying with Leah instead of Rachel, ignorantly, was not guilty of adultery, etc. This is, (saiesacute Chamier) not to take away Idolatry, but to stupefy the Idolater; 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 Passeover, had they not sinned because they thought they were not mistaken? Had the business been as completely and substantially performed, on a mistaken day, as on the true one. When the very day was as strictly commanded as the business itself? Let him consider it.  
I shall here insert the judgement of the learned Chemnitius, who, though he allow the observation of this, and other Festivals (as a Lutheran) with a reservation of Christian liberty, 
Exam. Conc. Trid. p. de diebus Fest. p. 265  without necessity of obligation, etc. yet he notes no less than thirteen ways or kinds of Superstition, in Papists observation of Holy days. We note some of them.  
1. In placing Holiness in the days, which God hath not placed in them.  
2. Esteeming the services then done, better and more holy, and acceptable, then if done on other days.  
3. Placing the worship of God on them, in ceasing from labours, and frequenting of Churches.  
4. Forbidding of labours on those days when they hinder not the public Worship.  
5." In the Necessity of observation.  
6. In the multitude of them. To which may be added, that  
7. They discriminate persons, to be more or less holy, as they observe or neglect them.  
And lastly, as more grace and blessing is expected from such voluntary, uncommanded observances.  
Now how far many men amongst us, are guilty of all, or some of these kinds of Superstition, it remains to discover.  
First, for placing holiness in them equal with the Lords 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 Lords day, 
See Sect. 59 To be esteemed above other days of the year, etc. consecrating it from common to sacred uses.  as both of the Churches instituted. The Doctor himself, sect. 20. calls this Festival most sacred; and sect. 24. tells us, The day hath been observed, if not much more, certainly as strictly as any Lord's day in the year, etc. 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, 
Sect. 77. being (more than lawful) pious in itself.  Ibid.  
Secondly, not only the services, but the observation of the day also, was esteemed an higher piece of service than that of the Lords day; more acceptable, then commanded worship, because more voluntary. So the Dr. often.  
Thirdly, 
Sect. 59 An oblation to God in honour to him, etc. Treat. of Wilworship, sect. 29. See sect. 59 people may not without offence to God follow their lawful vocations on that day. Rest is made an oblation to God.  placing the worship of God in the observation of the day, as a voluntary oblation, and parallel with the Freewillofferings in the Law (which the Doctor takes special notice of, * were parts of God's worship) Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ, in the service and to the honour of Christ, etc. Sect. 28.  
Fourthly, Forbidding labours 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 
* Willworship. s. 28.  of the Hasidaei, and makes it part of their Superstition, or Will-worship, That they first began to add to the law of God, voluntary performances of their own; then they made them necessary, and laid the obligation of them on others, to do as they did, and then not being obeyed, discriminated themselves from all others, as the only obedient servants of God, and so called themselves Pharisees. 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 Lords 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 Augustine's: All that acknowledge themselves sons of the Church observe the Festivals of the Church cited by the Doctor §. 35. 
Serm. de Temp. 250  To which the Dr. adds 'Tis consequent to this, that they which observe them not, disclaim this sonship, and cast themselves out of this family: 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. The fastidious rejecting, or not observing the Festivals of the Church universal, the great days, etc. must certainly be looked upon by every man, as an act of affected departure from the universal Church of Christ in all ages, as well as from the reformed Church of England his mother. Sect. 45. Which Sect. 12. he had called an Act of Division and Separation from that Church of the first and purest times: How justly or truly, let the Reader judge, by that which hath, and shall be said. In the 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. Teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men. He answers; Doctrines there, is the affirming a thing to be the pleasure and command of God, (as if I should put the King's broad Seal, to a deed of my own) but this is no ways chargeable on those that acknowledge this an Ecclesiastical institution, and pretend it not to be prescribed by Christ. I reply, 1 Teaching for Doctrines here, is not the affirming a thing to be a command of God, (or not that only) but is expounded by Col. 2.22. after the commandments and doctrines of men: 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. It's 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 Church's command, which is worse than putting the King's 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, 
In pract. Catechism.  and now come to consider, how he can vindicate this Festival, from the Riot and excess, commonly found there; which he acknowledges, a sin, and a greater sin in a Christian, than in a Jew, whose promises were of an earthly plenty, etc. 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; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys.  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 practised 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 itself 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 suffered these Humane inventions and institutions in his service, to be attended and celebrated, with the two extremes of true worship, Superstition and profaneness: we shall hear anon, Sect. 21. That in the ancient Church on days of festivity, men began to adorn themselves sumptuously to show their pride, & to far deliciously, to surfeiting & drunkenness. 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. Be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual songs, making melody in your hearts to the Lord. Those that have most of these, care least for earthly joys; and they that care most for earthly joys, (without which the festivity, would be thought a time of Lent, & Fasting) (it's feared) lest 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) The good cheer not to be the thing disliked in it:) 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, than any truth of Religion, or Institution o● God:  
That good Cheer and Hospitality and better , 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 Lawful, and then talk of better cheer and  Hospitality to friends, and Charity to the poor, have time enough to be exercised all the year; But to make a Miser's Feast, (as they say) at Christmas, and to neglect both neighbours and poor all the year after, is but a poor evidence of Hospitality or Charity.  
§. 20. If the Doctor will yield (as he seems to do) That when the Attendant hath destroyed the principal, and the External part shall devour the inward; and when it shall appear that the excesses and vices of men, occasioned by the Christmas cheer & sports, are more considerable to the raising of Souls, than his forementioned uses are beneficial, etc. 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 festivity itself, which hath ordinarily, if not inseparably been attended with such mischiefs without the least attempt of Reformation.  
§. 21. When pride and surfeiting, etc. got first into Festivities, in the Ancient Churches (as is confessed) the Fathers had they endeavoured the Removal 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 reform. As for his Discipline to be exercised only upon the riotous outward party; Saint Paul might have taught him a better way of Reformation; who when the Agapae, the Feasts of Charity, (begun upon good intentions, to relieve the 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, to rescue a laudable custom, from an impious appendage? as in the next section.  
§. 22. But yet see how Indulgent and tender the Doctor is, in his Reformation: 1. The eating and sporting part, that need not be abolished, save only in case of great and general abuses. 2. Nor then, till the abuses are not only so great, as decernible to out-ballance the good uses, but also so general, that the whole Church in a manner runs madding into those very great abuses. 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-ballance 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 Church's 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 Lords day, into luxury and excess; but also the superstitiously devoted to this day, who prefer it in opinion and practice, above the Lords day. These latter will not labour or play upon Christmas day, no touching either cards or dice that day, as sect. 24. But it's known two well that the Lords day, it was the ordinary practice of some great Rabbis, 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 than their own. They (for the most part) that are most strict and zealous in pleading for, and observation of the Festivals are commonly most remiss, and lose in observation of the Lords day.  
§. 24. For this, we have the Doctors own assertion, Christmas day itself, hath been kept, if not much more, certainly as strictly, as any Lord's day in the year, in frequenting the services of the Church, etc. in keeping at home, etc. not touching either cards or dice, that day. The excesses have been on the after days, etc. To which we say; First, this is part of the Superstition we charge it with; that the day, hath been esteemed and accounted more sacred, most sacred, the Dr. calls it, sect. 20. and observed with more, much more, or certainly as strictly as the Lord's day, any Lord's day in the year; we think equal strictness of observation, were too much; to set their posts, cheek by joale with Gods. But we know the ground of this, to be, that they make the Lords day, and Festivals, to be founded on the same 
* See sect. 57 The Lord's day by the same authority appointed: yet sect. 31. he says the Apostles instituted the Lord's day.  Authority, viz. of the Church; and then why (as one of them says) should they not have equal observation.  
Secondly, the not touching of Cards or Dice, on Christmas day; (it seems the Doctor allows 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 forbidden them on a day, that God hath not forbidden them; which is to make it an holy day, equal to Gods; (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 licence 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 John's day, than on Christmas day? why more unholy, or unlawful on Christmas day, than on the other?  
Thirdly, that the excesses and riot, are only on other days after the Nativity, is a poor excuse; For the whole twelve days are accounted part of the Festivity, and ordered to wait upon it. Sect. 39 That feast consisted of all the twelve days, says the learned Doctor. 
The Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time. sect. 63.  And so the Day itself, is guilty in part, of all the excesses of the following days; which are services fit for the Revels of Bacchus or Saturn, or for the birthday of an Herod, than for the Festivity of a Spiritual Saviour.  
§. 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, Festivals in general, & this of the Nativity in special pretend to stand and that he doth by certain degrees or steps.  
§. 28. First he acknowledges, it hath not its beginning from any institution of Christ, but either of the Apostles, or the succeeding Church. That it was not instituted by the Apostles, the same arguments will conclude, which are used against their Institution of Easter, sect. 6.1. There is no mention either of Institution or observation of it in Scripture, nor any ground produced thence, to found it on. 2. Socrates the Historian says expressly, Neither our Saviour, 
Lib. 5. cap. 22.  nor the Apostles commanded it, (the Feast of Easter) to be observed; and there the scope was not (speaking of the Apostles) to settle any laws for Festival days; but of a good life. If for no Festivals, than not for this of the Nativity. And its observable what he adds; There are some who think all whoredom to be a thing indifferent, that do contend for Festival days, as for life. It must then remain upon the succeeding Church. And there is no doubt but this is true, the succeeding Church, did set up Festivals; 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 Centurie, it seems, began to take it up: and then Socrates adds; They that received such rites, from their Ancestors, afterwards transmitted, them to their posterity as a Law, And here is the most likely Original of all Festivals. Hear what the learned Lord Faulkland says, in a like case, to our purpose some of great authority (moved by a good meaning) might thus deceive others, these thus deceived, might deceive others, till being generally spread, other good men, being loath to oppose them, for the same reason, for which others desired to spread them (thinking it an error that would increase piety) they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles, without contradiction. To which may be added what he had said, in the end of the former page, In those things which were believed very convenient, and yet feared that unless men counted them necessary, they would be backward to practise, how easy was it for them to be after taught, under pain of more danger then at first they were delivered with. But Superstitious rites were never without a show of wisdom as the Apostle says, Col. 2.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fair pretence of Reason. And the Doctor gives us one here. It being very reasonable, that those who acknowledged the receipt of such a mercy from God, as was the gift of his Son, etc. should desire to celebrate the remembrance of it, and offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ. 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 it? etc. would not Christ himself respect his own service, and honour? Nor his Apostles prescribe and institute a voluntary oblation to Christ, if they had thought it so great an honour to him? Are not all Superstitious inventions of men, in the worship of God, intended as voluntary oblations to him, because they would not have their piety restrained within those narrower bounds of doing nothing in the service, and to the honour of Christ, but what was distinctly prescribed, and particularly instituted by him? which is expressly against the second Commandment by the Apostle, under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Willworship. Col. 2.23. & 18. as we have said.  
§. 29. Such (says he) was the Feast of the Dedication of the Altar, among the Jews, not instituted by God himself; yet the observation of it, was approved, and confirmed by Christ's presence at that Feast, Joh. 10.23. 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 zerubbabel 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, 
Vide Tolet in joh. 10.23.  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. A day of feasting and joy, and sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor. And so it's said of the Feast of Dedication, 1 Maccab. 4.59. They ordering it should be kept yearly, with mirth and gladness: 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; than it may fairly be suggested, That they went beyond their commission, in making this feast Annual and perpetual, which neither Solomon, nor zerubbabel did theirs, for aught we read. 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; that that Feast was approved & confirmed by Christ's presence at it. The t xt produced says no such thing, but only thus, It was at Jerusalem, (mark that, not at the Temple) not elsewhere the Feast of the Dedication; and ver. 22. Jesus walked in the Temple: So he did other days, any day, when no Feast was: He was present in the Temple, not at the Feast; for aught 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 itself 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 Religious service, and a voluntary oblation to the honour of Christ, by others, and by the Dr. himself. sect. 28.  
§. 31. These Instances than are both impertinent, what hath he more pertinent to the present purpose? Why, that which I still expected to meet with; is his strongest plea: for this he says, It must be remembered, that the weekly Fast of the Resurrection (the Lord's day) was not instituted by Christ, or God himself; but by the Apostles of Christ: and that the mentions of the first day of the week, are no prescriptions or Law, for the observing of it, etc. Before we hear more, let's 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) that's 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, either of the Apostles, or succeeding Church. Secondly, if the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ, do not their Institutions carry in them, a Divine prescription or Law, for the observation of it? And if they instituted the first day of the week, to be the Lords day, or Christian Sabbath, do not at least some mentions of the first day, of the week, imply their Institution of that day to be holy, and require withal the observation of it? as 1 Cor. 16.2. in the judgement of some, no great Favourers of the Lords day Sabbath? Let's now hear what he says more. If any thing of that nature (as a law) be there sought for, it will rather appear to belong to the Annual, than weekly Feasts, So 1 Cor. 5.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the paschal Festivity, is annexed immediately, to Christ our Passeover, etc. and to that also, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lords day, Rev. 1.10. is thought to belong. To which I say.  
1. The vulgar Latin, authorized by the Church of Rome, (as willing to make Easter of 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; Because on Festival days, there were solemn Feasts of flesh observed; 
Estius in locum.  hence this word is used, for to celebrate festum & solemn epulum, asolemn Feast or Banquet; by allusion to the typical Paschall Feast. Before him the learned Aquinas, 
In locum.  could not find Easter here. Epmlemur, scilicet manducantes Christum, etc. let us feast, viz. eating Christ, not only Sacramentally but spiritually. Before them Saint Chrysostom, was not so quick sighted to find a Law for Easter here, but an every day Holiday, for so he says. The Apostle saying, let us keep the Feast, he said not, because the pasch or Easter or Pentecost was present, but showing that all or every time, is a Festival season to Christians. And presently after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: every day is a Pestivall to us: yea all our life. Not much unlike doth Saint Ambrose interpret the word, Hoc est laetitiam habentes renovationis, facta vetera fugiamus, That is, having the gladness of renovation, let us fly our old works, etc. 
Serm of Resurr.  I add but one thing more; The learned Bishop of Winchester, who pleads as strongly for this Easter Feast, as any, yet found'st 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 Holidays (except the Lord's day) therefore nor this of Easter.  
3. That the Lords day Rev. 1.10. should belong to the Easter day, is the fancy of some, who of late have laboured to depress the honour of the Lords 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. It's true that Aerius 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 Aerius opinions justly censured as Heretical; 
Epit. Hist. Cen. 4. cap. 47.  as the Doctor, or any may see, if he consult with Osiander, the Epitomiser 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 Holidays, but in opinion of more Holiness, more 
* As the Romans did, s. 67.  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 Martyr's Festivities: Where will be no reason to doubt, that so the days of the death or Martyrdom of the Apostles themselves, were formerly solemnised by them; and that this early, etc. 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 Chemnitius, a man of vast reading, having reckoned up the Festivals, 
Vbi supra p. 263.  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 Nativity, 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) that Justinus the Emperor commanded it to be kept Festival over the World. Shakes the Antiquity of it; For if the Apostles had instituted it, it would have had an universal observation, over the world, long before Justinus his days, ho lived in the 6. Century. As for Dioclesian's 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 4th Centurie; 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, 
Sect. 61:  it was kept, or some other day, (as he elsewhere says) yet the proofs for that day, are not very cogent. It's probable they that first instituted the day, did fix 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, Christmas day is in our old Monuments, called Midwinter day, which is the day of the Winter Solstice, confessed by him to be a fortnight distant, from the 25. of December.  
Secondly, it hath been the opinion of many, if not most of our learned Divines, that our Lord 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 Passeover, about our March, 
Quaer. 1. Sect. 10.  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, than 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; If it were framed by those that succeeded the Apostles, etc. so it is probable they were first entitled, Canons of Apostolical men: Or if it were one of those which in succeeding times were added and put into that volume, etc. This is enough to shake the authority of those Canons, and so the Antiquity of the Festival on such a day.  
§. 39 It's very like that Twelve 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. A special Holiday (imitating the custom of the Jews, which kept the first and last days of every Feast, days of solemn assembly) 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 Twelve day Festival, viz. 
Vide Chemnit. Prolegom. 4. p. 14. a, in Harmon. & p. 15: a. As baptised in the beginning of December.  that it is not certain.  
1. whence it had the name of the Epiphanie: whither from the appearing of the Star 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, that many orthodox Christians, in Egypt did keep the Feast of the Nativity on that Twelve day. And the Doctor says, he is more inclined to the last of the three conjectures, that is, that Epiphania, signifies the day, when Christ was born in the flesh, as Epiphanius had said, which though the Doctor say, that it is confuted by Saint Hierome; yet is enough to shake the Authority, of the Institution, that certainly it is not Apostolical, nor by the Primitive purest Churches, when the name was not agreed on, in Epiphanius time; (in the fourth Centurie) nor the day itself distinguished, but Christmas day by some, was observed on the same day. Wither the Mag● came to Christ, the next twelve 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. 
Sect. 45. Harm in locum.  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; out of the censual Tables of Augustus, the Registers of such as were enroled at the Tax, Luc. 2.1. together with the place and day of the month and year when it was done. This indeed would end the question concerning the day of Christ's Birth, but makes yet nothing to the main question; That Christmas (so called) is of Apostolical Institution; or of the next age. Let's 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 festivity 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 Lords Nativity, (which Martion 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, We have received the day from those that accurately knew these things, and which dwell in the City of Rome. 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 Centurie, 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, 
Tom. 5. p. 512. l. 23.  was in the month of December, called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as the month wherein Christ was conceived, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: We shall consider his Demonstrations in order.  
1. The first is this, That this Festival was so suddenly published every where, and that it arose and flourished to such an height. But does the Father at all, go about to prove this? That which he says is, That the preaching of the Gospel (so I think he means) or of Christ, by tent makers, fishermen, and vulgar men, took the whole World, in few years, by the power of him that was preached. 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 Bethlem, Christ was born, Luk. 2.6.7. Now the time of this Tax, was recorded in the Rolls of Augustus at Rome; and the good Father, was certified from thence, by some that dwell there, that it was in such a Month, and such a year. All this may be granted; but this proves 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, Those that lived there, did observe that very day (that we do) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from their Ancestors, and from ancient Traditions (as the Doctor renders the words) and sent us the knowledge of it. This might well be, if we consider the time and Age that both they and this Father lived in, which was (as we said) in the fourth Centurie: an 100 or 200. years before, might be so styled, an ancient Tradition.  
3. His last Demonstration, is from the consideration of the time of John's 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 John's 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 25th day thereof. But how proves the Father, the first, that Zacharie was officiating in the Temple, in our month of December? his discourse is very large: The sum of all comes to this: He takes for granted, these two things.  
First, that Zacharie, was then high Priest, and secondly, That the time was, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the day of expiation, on the 7th month, and 10th day of the month, at which time only the high Priest and he alone went into the most holy place. Now (says the Father) Zacharie was at this time gone alone into the most holy place, and all the people were without praying, Luk. 1.9, 10. This he proves, because it's said, when the Angel came to him, he saw him standing on the right side of the Altar of incense; which Zacharies lot was to burn, at that time: The Altar of  offerings (says he) was without, and the Altar of incense within the Veil. But now, if learned men be not mistaken, this is a great mistake in this Father. 
So in Ambr. in locum.  For first, the Author of the Notes upon the fift Tome of chrysostom; (Sir Henry Savill, I suppose) makes this observation upon the Father's words, pag. 515. l. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, From the premises of chrysostom, no conclusion can be collected, unless first it be proved, that Zacharie, was the high Priest, which yet was not true: although this Father, nourisheth his same opinion, in other places, by what probable argument at least, led to it, I know not. So fare he.  
Secondly, Chemnitius is confident, he was not High Priest, by many reasons. 1. Luke calls him simply Priest, and officiating in the order of his course, ver. 8. and that was, of the course of Abia, ver. 5. who was not of the High Priests line, but an ordinary Priest, of the 8th 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 Veil, but without, and there Zacharie 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 Veil, but that was in a Censer, not upon the Altar; as is said, Levit. 16.12. but he only took coals from the Altar of the  offering; and Incense from the Altar of of Incense, and put them both in a Censer, and offered it within the Veil: whereas the other Priests offered it daily, without the Veil. Now the Supposition of the Father, being ungrounded, what he builds upon it, will be fare 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 Nativity? 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, 
Tom. 5. p. 512. l. 15.  in the Homily where he so earnestly pleads for it. I know very well, that many are even now doubtful amongst themselves, concerning this day; some accusing, some defending: And there is much talk every where about this day, some charging it to be new, and of late Original, and now brought in: Other apologizing for it, that it is ancient, and from the beginning, famous and manifest in many places; to those that inhabit Thracia, etc. 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 Centurie: Yea questioned by many; and so no universal, much less, an Apostolical Institution; which all this while, the Doctor hath endeavoured to make the World believe.  
§. 45. His conclusion then, must needs be like his premises, weak and insufficient, if not injurious: That, the fastidious rejecting, or not observing the Festivals of the Church Universal, the great days, etc. must certainly be looked upon, by every man, as an act of affected departure, from the Universal Church in all ages; and not only from the reformed Church of England. 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 Holidays 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 shall 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 Festivals, 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. 
Quaere 1. Sect. 35  What ever hath the concordant attestation of the Christian Church of the first ages (the Scripture remaining obscure, or silent in the matter) that it, was the Doctrine or practise Apostolical, there remains not to any that now lives, any imaginable ground of sober or prudent doubting, or questioning the truth of it. This resolution, and Case, the Doctor begins with, and intends it as a Rule, applicable to all the following cases; against Socinians, and other Heretics and Schismatics, Sect. 40. 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, where the Scripture is either obscure or silent in the matter.  
2. That it be not extended any further, than to the primitive Ancients.  
3. And again to an accordance of those Testimonies (without any considerable opposition) that this or that was delivered from the Apostles. We shall (by his leave) apply this rule, to the case in hand; and dare venture to be judged by it: First considering the Rule, and then the cautions.  
And first for the Rule itself, we desire to know again, what he means, by the Church of the first ages? If he take it inclusively, to take in the Churches of the Apostolical time, while they were yet alive, we should not stick to grant his rule to be good. What ever doctrine or practice hath the concordant attestation of that Church, it was Apostolical. The Negative whereof being a surer Rule to judge by; What ever doctrine or practice wants such concordant, universal, uniform Attestation, is not Apostolical. For they being all guided, by on Spirit, would all agree, uniformly, in the same Doctrine, or practice. But there are not many things so attested by the Church of that age. On the other side, if he 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 the concordant attestation, of the primitive Ancients, of the second, or third Age, without considerable opposition. (which is one of the Cautions) that this was delivered from the Apostles; I shall put in a just exception, in the words of the learned and honoured Lord Falkland; in his discourse, Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome; who plead, the universal Tradition of the Church, for their Religion, (as the Doctor does, for his Christmas.) Thus he writes: If the Relation of one Pappias could cousin so fare, all the prime Doctors of the Church Christian, into a belief of the celebration, of a thousand years after the Resurrection, so as, that not one of those two first ages, oppose it, (mark that) till Dionysius Alexandrinus, who lived at least 250. years after Christ: nay, if those first men, did not only believe it, as probable, but Justin Martyr, saith, he holds it, and so do all that are in all parts, Orthodox Christians. Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition, and relates the very words that Christ used, when he taught this; which is plainer than any other Tradition, is proved, or said to be, out of Antiquity, by them (of Rome) If I say, these could be so deceived, why might not other of the Ancients, as well be deceived, in other points? And then what certainty shall the learned have (when after much labour, they think they can make it appear, that the Ancients thought any thing a Tradition) that indeed it was so, etc. The Doctor's wisdom can easily apply this to the case in hand. And I perceive he was ware of such an objection, and therefore labours to prevent it, by saying, That Justin Martyr, 
Quaer. 1. sect. 38.  the prime assertor of it (that's a mistake, for he and Irenaeus also, had it from Pappias, who was their Senior) confesses, other Christians, of pure and pious intentions, to he otherwise minded. But for that, let him answer his friend the Lord Falkland, 
Lo. Falk. reply p. 73.  who says, That Justin Martyr says, that in his time, all (all) Orthodox Christians held it, and joins the opposers, with them who denied the resurrection, and esteems them among the Christians, like the Saduces among the Jews: and again says, It found no resistance, in above two Ages, by any one known, and esteemed person. And what now is become of the Doctor's Rule?  
Thirdly, the Rule applied to the case in hand, will prove, (more than 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. Festivals of old, were part of the Ceremonial yoke, upon the Jews, and therefore to give the Church a power, to institute Holidays, 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 Centurie, of Pappias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. 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, Where known to be corrupted by Heretics, under the name of the Apostles, This Chemnitius further proves, because the Fathers of the first Ages, do not so much as intimate any such usage in their times. No mention there is, amongst the most ancient, of celebrating the Feast of the Nativity, till Basills, Nazianzenes, and Chrysostom's time, who lived not till the fourth Centurie 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 fare from the first ages of the Church, or being Universal.  
3. Another of the Doctor's cautions is, it must be attested, without any considerable opposition. But this, his Christmas found in the fourth Centurie, as we heard, Sect. 44. In Chrysostom's time, there was a considerable opposition; Many being doubtful, many charging the Festivity, with novelty, and as of late brought in: For a conclusion, then of all; the Doctor's Censure is too harsh, and the Character too hard, that is set upon the refusing of it. That it hath nothing but the Novelty and contempt of Antiquity to recommend it unto any. We shall only put him in mind of two places, in his own writings. The one here, at Sect. 35. the other Testimony of Nicephorus; That Justinus the Emperor first commanded it to be kept Festival over the world. 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: That belonging only to the edict of the Emperor for the universal observation, doth no way prejudge the Churches, whither Apostolical, or Primitive Institution of it. It's 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, 
pag. 181.  It was not solemnised universally, till about 400. years after Christ. How often hath he charged us, with departure from the Universal Church, in rejecting, and not observing the Festivities of the Universal Church: etc. 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 Doctor's 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: as a shorter way, to question and debate the truth, or supposed certainty of some of his own principles: For an essay, this  
§. 75. Wither it be not lawful for the Church, either national, of one, or Universal of all parts of Christendom, especially of that age nearest the Apostles, of the first and purest time, to take upon it to institute one or more days, upon any special occasion of some eminent mercy of Gods, toward the whole Church, to be used yearly, in acts of Christian piety and charity, 
Chemnit. Exam. de dieb. Fest. Ames. Medul. in 4. precept. D. Riu. in Exod. 20. p. 206. 6.  by all the Children of that Church, and to expect obedience from them. But under favour, this is not the question now between us; For not only the Lutherans, but even the most rigid Calvinists, and Nonconformists (as they were called) do grant, That the Church, or rather the State, hath power, to set apart any day to the acts of piety, and charity, not only upon extraordinary eminent mercies, but upon ordinary occasions, provided 1. They be not too many, for number; nor 2. Imposed as necessary, to the prejudice of Christian 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. It's more than 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: Dedicating days to to Saints; Invocating them in their prayers; Making the observation of them necessary: The days themselves holy, holier than other days, than the Lords day: placing the worship of God in them; expecting more acceptance, more blessing from the services of those days, as a voluntary worship. These abuses were foreseen by the Reformed Churches, and thereupon, either the Days 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 honour, estimation, and observance of those remaining Festivals, especially this of Christmas; equalling them with, if not preferring them above the Lords day, (as was said before) etc. 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 Practices and Discourses against the Lord's day, and for the Holidays: None that I know, or have met with, have manifested more ways of being Superstitious, in this Subject of Holidays, than the Doctor in this discourse of Festivals; 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. Wither such an ancient Institution of the Church of Christ, by name, the anniversary feast of Christ's birth, though it be not affirmed to be commanded by Christ, or instituted by the Apostles, or (in itself considered, without respect to the Institution) absolutely necessary to the being of a Church; yet being thus (more than lawful) pious in itself; proper in respect of the ground, primitively Catholic, (if not Apostolic) in respect of the Institution, may be lawfully abolished. etc. Wherein the Doctor takes for granted, these things, which he hath not proved.  
1. That this Festival is of so ancient Institution, as primitively Catholic, if not Apostolic Seeing it hath been made appear to be, neither 1. 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 more than lawful, pious in itself. 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 Ancient Institution (if it were proved so) abused to Superstition and profaneness, may not by a particular Church, or Christian Magistrate 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: Wither by any obligation of conscience it appear necessary to be thus abolished, on this only ground, of truth, because the following days have sometimes been misspent in riot etc. by some wicked men. 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. Wither any Church, national, or universal (since the Apostles) have power to institute any Religious Ceremonies as parts of worship, etc. (as it is propounded, Sect. 9) and in particular, this Festival of Christmas, making it a part of Divine worship, the day equally holy as the Lords day, etc. and not be Superstitious.  
2. Whither if any Humane Institution in the worship of God be abused to Superstition, and profaneness, it may not, ought not to be abolished.  
3. Wither the Feast of Christmas in special, hath not been abused to riot and excess by the most part of vulgar people, and to Superstition also, by them, and many Divines, and by the Doctor himself. if Superstition be an excess of Religion, as we have proved it to be.  
4. If so, then, Wither it was not necessary for such as have power in their hands, 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: Adiaphora non necessaria, horrenda Idolomania polluta, esse abolenda.  
FINIS.   

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 worshipped. p. 19 l. 4. a fine deal 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 didst. 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 toils 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & l. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. road. 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.