AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. CAWDRY'S Triplex Diatribe Concerning Superstition, Will-worship, AND Christmas Festival.  
By H. Hammond D. D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. Flesher, for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, and for Richard Davis Bookseller in Oxford. 1655.   

A Preface to the READER.  
1. THat Mr. Cawdrey hath taken great pains to show me the infirm parts of three little Tracts of Superstition, Will-worship and Festivals, I am now obliged to take notice, and to design the vacancy of a few days to clear those brief discourses from all the misprisions and exceptions, to which some contrary hypotheses of his (how true shall in due place be examined) more than the want of evidence in the Tracts themselves may have rendered them liable.  
2. What on the two former heads I wrote many years since, I confess, I expected not to see arraigned at this time, being designed as part of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which might help to repair the breach, at least mollify the Paroxysm, by removing two of the five specious charges, under which the blameless ceremonies, and customary practices, and observances of the Church of England were by dissenters oppugned and rendered odious. And what was then said, as I could not discern wherein it came short of Evidence of conviction (if I had, I should certainly either have cleared or suppressed them) so it was never my fortune in nine years' space to hear from any, that it lay under an ill character, but on the contrary, that it had in some measure performed what it undertook, freed our Church from those two accusations, and demonstrated them, as applied to us, to be perfect calumnies. And I have but one Petition to the Read●● at his entrance on these debates, that he will calmly review those two Treatises, with three more designed to the same end, and upon his strictest survey advertise me, wherein I have failed in my undertaking.  
3. But it is come to pass, what Arrian long since taught me to expect, that as when general discourses come to be applied to particular cases, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than 
Arr. Epict. l. 1. c. 22.  the contention begins, so when the grounds, more universally laid for the justifying our Church, were in a tract concerning Festivals, and especially the day of the Nativity of Christ, brought home to the clearing that celebration from either of those two (as from all other) charges, than Mr. Cawdry's hypotheses, in which, I suppose, his way of managing his opinion of the morality of the Sabbath had engaged him, found themselves to be concerned, than the commemoration of the birth of Christ, though but by one anniversary (being not easily reconcileable with the grounds which he had laid for the Christians one weekly Sabbath in the 4th Commandment of the Decalogue) was solemnly to be indicted and, as in a Chancery bill, all imaginable evil to be affixed on it, and the customary riot of festivities being not sufficient to render it odious, the more formidable charges of Will-worship and Superstition must be revived, and by the necessity of this consequence, to salve his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all that I had said on either of those two subjects, though never so clear, must now be called to a severe examen, and so store of new tasks provided for me.  
4. And me thinks 'tis possible that old 
* Elias Leu. Thish. p. 49.  Nahum's word may not here be unreasonable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even this also for good, To which purpose I am willing to remember what Alexander Aphrodisaeus told the Emperors Severus and Antoninus, in his Preface to the Tract of Fatality and Free will, that whosoever would point him out any doubt or difficulty, that remained in that matter, after the reading of his treatise, he would account it a great favour and honour to him, rendering this reason for it, because it was not easy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Tract, to do two things exactly, both dilucidely to expound the matters of which he principally wrote, and all those other things also, which were useful to the explicating thereof.  
5. And the same I desire may introduce my address to this Diatribist, and the tasks by him set before me, The subjects which he hath chosen to consider with me being such, as well deserve some care from each of us, that we neither deceive others, nor ourselves in them, I mean, perfectly practical, concerning a peculiar Christian duty incumbent on us, in that of Festivals, and again a more universal duty, that of obedience to our immediate Superiors, and to the universal Church of Christ, from which we must not depart or be affrighted, upon pretence of Superstition etc. and yet ought warily to secure our obedience from that and the like guilts, when there is any real danger of them. And beside these, there is somewhat of a more sublime consideration (on occasion of that of Will-worship) the freewill offerings which will very well become a Christian to bring to Christ, rewardable in a high degree, though they are not under any express precept, such are all the highest charities, and devotions, and most heroical Christian practices, which shall all not only be degraded but defamed, if every thing be concluded to be criminous, which is not necessary, if all uncommanded practice be unlawful.  
6. Now this Diatribist having undertaken to examine what I then wrote, and done it with so little partiality to me, that I have no reason to suspect he hath left any minute difficulty unmentioned, I shall hope that the descending to a particular survey of all his objections will probably prevent any future mistake in these matters, and upon this score, as St Augustine thought it necessary for those heathens which deisied all their benefactors, to build one altar and pay some homage to their enemies, because they deserved to be numbered among their benefactors, so have I not grudged the tribute of my pains, at least that of a ready, though laborious obedience to this call of the Diatribist, but apprehended this opportunity of removing all doubts, which can recur and require solution; entertaining myself with some slender hope that the Reader may reap some small benefit thereby in order to christian practice; the one thing which I desire to propose, as the end of all my meditations, and never to be drawn by the importunity of those which differ from me in opinion, into any contention or engagement, which hath not this aim visible before it, the seasonable checking and reformation of some vices, (such sure are those which here I desire to prevent and remove) or the confirmation and increase of virtue, to the glory of God, and the multiplying of fruit to our account.  
7. That this hath been the only aim of all hitherto published by me, even of those discourses which are most polemical, I am so fully satisfied in myself, that I doubt not to approve it to any, that can make question of it, where difference of opinion doth not either by close consequence, or more immediately, lead into vicious practice, I shall never willingly contend with any man, or make reply to the contentious: But in Doctrines which have immediate influence upon practice, 'tis obligation of charity to endeavour the disabusing of all, and not to permit or suffer any such fruitful, and noxious error upon my neighbour.  
8. Under which head because I cannot but place the rejecting of Children from Baptism, and find some objections, offered by Mr. Tombs, to what I have written on that subject, I have therefore drawn a short defence of that Apostolical practice, and vindicated my former discourse from his answers, and exceptions, which being offered to the Reader, as soon as the Printer will permit, I shall not doubt of his leave to shut up the Palaestra at this time, having sufficiently cloyed him with these Spectacles.  
9 And it is my wish for him that he may continue to have the ease (at least) of a Spectator, that it may be his lot, though for some months it hath not been mine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to live peaceably and quietly with all men, a felicity of which we are all to be ambitious, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a grace that we are all, not in prayer only, 
1 Thess 4. 11.  but by real endeavours to contend for, and to hold it fast, until it be violently wrested from us.  
10. As it is, I have with patience fortified myself for the present undertaking, and to make it also as supportable as may be to others, abstained from transcribing the entire several Sections of his Diatribae, and only repeated as much as exacts answer from me, not omitting (as far as my wit would serve me) any the least particular, which can be thought to have energy against any of those things, that are asserted by me in those Tracts, save only when the same things once answered have again, whether in words or sense, been repeated by him.   

THE Contents of the several CHAPTERS and Sections contained herein.  

CHAPTER. I. OF Mr. C. his Title Pages. page. 1  
Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endless Genealogies, 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9 The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse. 1  
Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8, 9 Gal. 4. 9, 10. Deum sic colere quomodo scipsum colendum praecepit. Christmas no irrational custom. 3   

CHAP. II. Of Mr. C. his Preface. p. 4  
Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes. Comparing of Superstition and Will-worship to Heresy. Accounting Superstition our virtue. 4  
Sect. 2. Of being too Religious; of the intention or degree. The Messalians, Neglect of Charity, of particular callings, Eccl. 7. 16. Of multitude of Ceremonies. Too many Ceremonies no argument of too much, but of too little Religion. 6  
Sect. 3. Mr. C. his distinctions of being too religious, multiplied unnecessarily. Frequency of duty, if secured from other neglects, no excess, nor criminous. Prayer a branch of Natural worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Excess in trust, etc. as well as in Prayer. The Species of worship, and the circumstances thereof. The wide difference between these. Times of Prayer not limited by Scripture: Set days of worship, Gestures, Prostration. Mr. C. his 3. proofs examined, Deut. 4. 2. considering Apoc. 22. 19 A view of Aquinas' doctrine in this matter. 8  
Sect. 4. Excess of Religion. Super statutum. Addition to the Rule. Doctrines. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 17. 22. Act. 25. 29. Six concessions. Superstitiosus. Worshipping of Angels. Superstitum cultus. Slavish fear. Religion in Epicurus. Fear of punishment in sons; in wicked men. The necessity thereof. Dogmatizing. Placing more virtue in things then belongs to them. 20  
Sect. 5. The innocence of Will-worship. Analogy with voluntary oblationsunder the law. Seeming Contradiction. The authority of chrysostom and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment. Reducing all sins to the Decalogue. Addition to the rule, Worship of Angels. Other sins beside that of Dogmatizing. 32  
Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmas Festival. Of Church Laws. 38   

CHAP. III. Of Superstition peculiarly. And first of his Prolegomenon on that Subject. p. 41  
Sect. 1. Answer to §. 1. The method used to find the meaning of the word. 41  
Sect. 2. Answer to §. 2. Amesius' definition. The matter of the 4 first Commandments. The affirmative part of the 2d. Commandment. The Diatribist's misadventure about Duty in the midst. No prohibition of either holy days in the 4th Commandment. Jeroboams act, 1 Kin. 12. 32. The Rubenites altar, Josh. 22. Naaman's altar. Christmas Festival parallel to it. The excesses in each Commandment. 42  
Sect. 3. The species of Superstition, Idolatry belongs to the 2d. Commandment. Superstition to the first. It differs from Will-worship. The meaning of Illegitimate worship in Aquinas. His opinion of Ecclesiastical rites. Barbarous ceremonies of Baal's worship belong not to the 2d. Commandment. Holy days before Popery. Two ancient Testimonies for them. The Jews scrupulosity in not resisting on the Sabbath day. 49  
Sect. 4. The Diatribist's method and caution in setting down the species of Superstition. 53   

CHAP. IV. Of the particular exceptions of the Diatribist to the Tract of Superstition p. 55  
Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt. 55  
Sect. 2. The nature of the word. Excess of fear among the Epicureans. Superstitio from Super and sto, not statuo. Aquinas misreported. 56  
Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the heathens for Religion, so in Hesychius and Phavorinus. 58  
Sect. 4. False worship is not Will-worship. Imposition of hands. 59  
Sect. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 17. 22. (The Athenians the most devout of all the Greeks.) 60  
Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25. Festus' scorn falls on the Jews, not on Paul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own, not theirs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accusation. Jesus put under the notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Festus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a daemon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Diatribists objections answered. Superstition for Religion simply. 62  
Sect. 7. The method of search for the original notion of the word. Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens. Among them Superstition all one with Religion. Plutarch of the Sabbatick rest. Sacrificing children to Moloch, was not to the true God, Jer. 32. 35. Leu. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worship. The glosses of the Etymologist and Phavorinus. 66  
Sect. 8. Superstition always ill, but not always excess. Probations from the use of words among heathens. The Quaere of Divorce vindicated. Superstitions not reproached in the Romans by Polybius. Ignorance not presently Superstition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 17. The Israelites worshipping the Calf. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Superstitiosus noting excess. 70  
Sect. 9 The Diatribist's concession of the innocence of unprescribed ceremonies, and so of all that is demanded. His censure of himself and Chamier. Authority in a Church to institute Ceremonies. Abstaining from ceremonies, because commanded by men or abused by Papists. 77  
Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections. What excess Divines mean by Superstition. What S. Augustine. Obligation to performance, without being parts of worship. Observers of order more Religious, more acceptable than others. The reason why Jewish ceremonies are interdicted. The Church of England sparing in ceremonies Ceremonies not foreshowing Christ lawful to be retained by Christians. The abstinence from blood, long continued in the Church. The Saturday Sabbath. Negative wholesomeness not sufficient to recommmend ceremonies. All folly in worship is not Superstition. The opinion of the ancient Church worth considering. No duties appointed for the circumstances sake. Time or place instituted by God is a circumstance, as well as when by man. Apostolical Divine. 82  
Sect. 11. A Vindication of the Tract of Superstition from uncharitableness. 88   

CHAP. V. Of Will-worship. p. 92  
Sect. 1. The state of the Question. Will-worship distinguished from the circumstances of it. The matter of man's will of three sorts. The 6. several possible notions of Will-worship. The application of them to the matter in hand. The vanity of the Diatribists distinction. The scope of the 2d Commandment. 92  
Sect. 2. The method of explicating difficulties in the new Test: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense: and when in a bad, no prejudice to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 99  
Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. answered. The difference betwixt Commands of Magistrates and imposition of dogmatizers. What 'tis which is said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 101  
Sect. 4. The Magistrate's power acknowledged. Inventing new ways of worship. David's appointing the Levites to wait from 20. years old, an act of a King, not of a Prophet. David's last words. 104  
Sect. 5. Col. 2. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Placing worship. Christian liberty. Marriage. The Glosses put on the commands of men. 107  
Sect. 6. The Diatribist's way to make the Doctor's words witness against him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Placing worship, an equivocal phrase. 112  
Sect. 7. Of Petitio Principii. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two renderings. The danger from mistake on the Diatribists side. My interpretation not singular. His no way probable. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particle of extenuation, no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. No show of wisdom in respect of the folly that is in it. The Will-worship parallel to the humility. The prime argument for my interpretation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for piety, vindicated from the contrary proofs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worship of Angels. No agreement betwixt Col. 2. 18. & 23. or betwixt 23 & 1 Cor. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 114  
Sect. 8. The abstinences how taught by the Gnostics. Their pretences for them, no realities. Abstinences may be free will offerings, and self-denyals. Such may Fasting duly qualified. Such may virginal Chastity. Paul's judgement of it. chrysostom of things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Abstinences positive acts. And yet, if negative, may be acceptable. These abstinences not commanded. 122  
Sect. 9 Compliance with Papists. The Diatribists inconstancy. 125  
Sect. 10. A reply to his answer of my two first reasons for the good sense. Humility and Will-worship associated, either both real or both pretended. Popish laniations why culpable. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fasting a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 far from hurtful or abominable, wherein the profit of it consists. The true sense of 1 Tim. 4. 8. wherein the illness of it consists. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Abstinence because of abuses. For Religion. Marcionites. Durand. A show of Piety in Will-worship. All show of good in respect of somewhat that is good. The Diatribists fallacious instances and questions. 127  
Sect. 11. The Greek Father's acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. An argument of goodness that 'tis pretended by hypocrites. Religion in a good sense. Will-worship not worse than false worship, not abominable. All devised worship is not Idolatry, doth not pretend to more wisdom then Gods. The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Translator, and the followers thereof. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the vulgar rendered decernitis. The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the goodsense. The testimonies out of Ambrose, Theodoret, Salmeron, Estius, Augustine, Thomas, examined. 139  
Sect. 12. The fifth reason vindicated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesychius corrected twice. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesychius' Glossary concordant to the Scripture use. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 5. 4. 149  
Sect. 13. Mr. C. His distinction of voluntary. Spontaneous. A work of love. The Testimony of Socrates. Worship true or false. Nothing unlawful which is not forbidden. Voluntariness no way forbidden. The second Commandment. 153  
Sect. 14. The first occasion of mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ill. The vulgar translator and Mr. Calvin. The Diatribists three exceptions to this showed to be of no force. Will-worship distant from Superstition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only in a good sense among Christians. Three mistakes of the Diatribist. All uncommanded is not forbidden. 155  
Sect. 15. The second occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an ill sense vindicated. The design of the Treatise of Will-worship, only for ceremonies, not for new kinds of worship. Whether all ceremonies be forbidden, which are not commanded. The various reading of Philostorgius. Sitting at the Gospel forbidden. Chrysostom's Testimony. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ecclesiastical Canon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship. 159  
Sect. 16. The third occasion of the mistake cleared. Worship of Angels forbidden, not only not commanded. The reviving Judaical worship not called Will-worship, Col. 2. 23. Maimonides' words wrested to a distant sense by the Diatribist. Original of Angel-worship. Vain worships. Clemens confounding of Col. 2. 18. with 23. Worship of Angels etc. a forbidden Will-worship. The imposing of virginity and abstinences, as from God, the only crime, found fault with by S. Paul and the ancient Catholics. Alcibiabes his using, and remission of austerity. The like of Spiridion and Marcianus. Cyrill of meats. 1 Tim. 5. 23. explicated. 163  
Sect. 17. The last occasion of the ill sense. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius. Of the Pharisees appellation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dogmatizing and discriminating. Epiphanius' words cleared. Wherein their hypocrisy consisted. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Mac. 2. 42. Asidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the fault. 169   

CHAP. VI Of freewill offerings. p. 173  
Sect. 1. The use of them in this question. The Diatribists discourse of them. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Leviticalness of spontaneous offerings asserted by him, in order to denying them among Christians. Arguments against this conceit. Allowance of days as well as of worship among the Jews. Allowance acknowledged by the Diatribist to be as good as commands. 173  
Sect. 2. A first instance of uncommanded Piety's, David's intention to build the Temple. Vindicated from the three answers of the Diatribist. 181  
Sect. 3. A 2d instance and that under the New Testament. Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians; This, no action of common life, nor yet a due debt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for using, 1 Cor. 7. 31. 1 Cor 9 17. explained. The authority of Augustine, chrysostom and Theophylact. 184  
Sect 4. The third of Paul's going up to Jerusalem: this under no precept. No refusing to suffer, no retarding of the Gospel. The example of Christ and S. Paul at other times, the testimony of Origen, and confession of the Diatribist. 188  
Sect. 5. The fourth of more liberal alms giving. Sadduces and Asidaei, Righteousness, Mercy. Paul's advice without command. 2 Cor. 8. 2. The Diatribists answer satisfied. Alms the Christians sacrifice in the offertory. Allowance no command. A latitude of degrees in the middle rule. The Apostles direction of giving as God hath prospered. Of the circumstances of giving. 191  
Sect. 6. The fifth instance vindicated. Circumstances of Prayer acknowledged free. Difference between placing worship in gestures, etc. and pleasing God by them. So in Festivals. 197  
Sect. 7. Of the difference betwixt a precept and a grace. The proportionable return to grace is in a latitude. The highest no excess. A possibility for grace to be given in vain. 198  
Sect. 8. My answer to a first bead of objections vindicated. Prudence lost by man's own sin recoverable by grace. The punishments of Adam's sin are not our faults. Perfection of innocence capable of degrees. So perfection of the Judaical law, and of the Christian, So mercifulness to ability. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8. 3. Merciful as God is Merciful belongs not to the degree. God's righteousness punishes not where there is no law. Intuition of reward in Christian performances, no Popery. Proofs of this from Scripture, from the nature of Hope, Faith, Gratitude. Not always prudent to undertake the highest. Martyrdom no conceited Popish perfection, yet under no precept to all. S. Hieroms words examined. Two notions of the word Perfection. Some perfection possible in this life, and yet capable of growth. The law, as it signifies the condition of the first Covenant, is not now in force with believers. Of Christ's perfecting the law. Every man is not bound to do what is best. 1 Cor. 7. 3. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of moral good. The saying of Gregory explicated. 202  
Sect. 9 My answer to a second sort of objection, vindicated. Loving God with all the heart. Adam's love in innocency capable of degrees. Perfect love that casts out fear, to be had in this life. Christ more intense in prayer at one time then another, an argument that all is not sin that is less than the highest. 221  
Sect. 10. My answer to the last objection, of Supererogation. A place in S. Cyprian vindicated from the Romanists reading. Imputare. An act of mercy in God that our works are rewarded. Supererogation wherein it consists. The Diatribists etymology of the word disproved. Erogare, Erogatio. The Diatribists ways of Supererogating. Pride, Glorying. More reward for eminent uncommanded excellencies superadded to duty. The Diatribists charity, and confession of us. His censure of the Bishop's unjust. 223.   

CHAP. VII. Of Christmas and other Festivals. p. 231  
Sect. 1. The observance which is due to the Custom of a Church. The Testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine, and Isidore. 231  
Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity. 233  
Sect. 3. Of Crescens coming into France, and Simon Zelotes into England. The difference of keeping Easter in the West and East. Testimonies for our conversion in the Apostles times, Before King Lucius. The Diatribists suggestion disproved. Britain not converted from Rome. 235  
Sect. 4. The keeping of Easter in the Apostles times. Polycrates' Epistle to Victor. The Asiatic way from Philip and John. From Philip derived to Britanny. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The testmony of Socrates against Festivals, examined. 241  
Sect. 5. Midwinter-day. The Winter Solstice. Julius' Calendar. 246  
Sect. 6. Festivals not Romish. The primitive Churches pure from the heresies that solicited them; The Romish corruptions not fetched from them. 247  
Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feast may not be abolished among us. The Diatribists mistake of the question. 249  
Sect. 8. The Reformation in this Kingdom. No imperfection in it in point of Festivals. The States joining in it no disadvantage to the Church. 252  
Sect. 9 The Lutheran Churches accord in this. Morneys wish. The Helvetian confession. Rivets custom of preaching on the day. 254  
Sect. 10. Ejecting festivals. Separation from the purest times, even those of the Apostles. Our Church's departure from Rome unjustly paralleled with the departure of sons from our Church. 255  
Sect. 11. The profaneness objected to the Festival. Casting out the Creeds. 257  
Sect. 12. The Diatribists change of my words, his causeless praise of himself, and censure of others. 259  
Sect. 13. His 2d change of my words. gedeon's golden Ephod not appliable to Feasts. 260  
Sect. 14. Strictures on his 16th §. Our Festivals unfitly compared with the Romish. How observation of Fèstivals may be a duty of the 5 Commandment. The fourth Commandment no way contrary to Christian Festivals. Venial sins. All mistakes not sins. Chemnitius not producible against me. 261  
Sect. 15. Of riot. Christian joys no way contrary to our Festivals. Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day. Heathen customs cannot be objected. God's judgements vainly urged for arguments. The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities. The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after. Reformation of excess without abolition of the Festival. Attempt to reform, previous to abolition. The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals. Cures for diseases, excisions only for desperate spreading evils. No cards on Christmas day, as much strictness on Christmas, not more sacredness then on the Lord's day. No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles. Neither Superstition nor hypocrisy in abstaining from cards on Christmas day. 265  
Sect. 16. Christmas, if of the same original with Easter, certainly Apostolical. However, of the practice of the Primitive Church. All rendering of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 275  
Sect. 17. The encaenia, a religious feast instituted by the Jews, and approved by Christ, vindicated from all his exceptions. Marriage feasts. Religious feasts cannot be unlawful, if civil be lawful. The feast of Purim a religious feast. 277  
Sect. 18. How the comparison holds between the Lord's day and Christmas day. Institution, usage Apostolical for Festivals. No law in Scripture for the Lords day. 283  
Sect. 19 Aerius' heresy that Festivals are unlawful. S. Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius'. The Diatribists inconstancy. The testimony of the Church of Smyrna, an evidence of keeping the days of the Apostles martyrdom. The Testimony from the martyrdom of Ignatius according with it. Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals. 286  
Sect. 20. Strictures on §. 35. The author of the Constitutions a competent testifier when in accord with others. Justinus' edict for Festivals reconcileable with the Apostolical usage of them. The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmas day. Objections against the 25. of December answered. The controversy in chrysostom about the day, not the Feast. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His words full for the Apostolicalness of both. 289  
Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion. Strictures on some passages in it. 292    
AN ACCOUNT OF THE 3 ex DIATRIBE CONCERNING Superstition, Will-worship, and Christmas Festival.  

CHAP. I. Of Mr C. his Title Pages.  

Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endless Genealogies, 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9 The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse.  
AND first the Title page will deserve a cursory view, especially the place of Scripture, wherewith he hath chosen to adorn it, Col. 2. 4. 8. by which the Reader is directed to look on his threefold exercitation (as he is pleased to call it) with Dr. H. as an especial antidote against that Philosophy, etc. of which S. Paul forewarns men to take heed in those two verses.  
On this occasion I shall not need inquire, what provocation Mr. C. had to express such unkindness to, and jealousy of Philosophy, (certainly not the same that S. Paul then had among his Colossians) but only remind the Reader what is 
Annot. on Col. 2. a. and 1 Tim. 1. 2.  elsewhere showed more largely, that the Philosophy there branded by the Apostle, was that which the Gnostics divinity was too full of, taken out of Pythagoras and the Greek Poets, Antiphanes, Hesiod and Philistion, and especially Orpheus his Theology or Genealogies of the Gods, and so promiscuously styled by the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Philosophy and vain deceit, in this admonition to the Colossians, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fables and endless genealogies (how out of Night and Silence comes forth Chaos etc.) in his directions to Timothy 1 Tim. 1. 4. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foolish questions and genealogies, in his Epistles to Titus c. 3. 9  
And then how conveniently this was accommodated to any, or all those three discourses concerning Superstition, Will-worship, Christmas Festival, must be discerned by his answer to all, or any of these few questions, 1. Whether any Gnostick principle of Theologie hath been discovered in any of those three Tracts which he hath undertaken to chastise. 2. Whether it be a piece of Apostatical or heretical pravity, a branch of heathenism or Gnosticisme, to maintain the celebration of Christ's Nativity to have nothing criminous in it, either under the head of Superstition or Will-worship. 3. Whether all institutions of the Church, though in themselves never so blameless, are yet to be looked on, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acts of dispoiling Christians, and little less than Sacrileges, and whether they are all comprehended under that style of Traditions of men, and rudiments of the world, in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after Christ, of which the Apostle so carefully warns the Colossians. Lastly, whether all probable, or concludent, nay even demonstrative discourse, be to be warded and averted, as deceits and beguilings, because capable of that title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Apostle there useth, whether we render them literally probabilities of speech, or with our translation, enticing words?  
When M. C. hath accommodated any satisfactory answer to these few questions (all, or at least some one of them) he may then be qualified to attempt justifying the charitableness of his title page, and the propriety of his select Scripture, but till then, he may give his Reader leave to question one of them.   

Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8, 9 Gal. 4. 9, 10. Deum sic colere quomodo seipsum colendum praecepit. Christmas no irrational custom.  
THe same reason I have to put in my exceptions to the title pages of his two other exercitations, and in like manner, 1. to demand, how commodiously the words of Christ, Mat. 15. 8, 9 condemning their worship as vain, which teach for doctrines the commandments of men, are affixed to the second Diatribe concerning Will-worship, when he cannot but know, that that Text is particularly handled in the first leaf of the treatise of Will-worship, and demonstrated neither to belong to humane laws in general, nor to any institutions of the Christian Church, but only to the dogmatizing of Pharisaical heretics, and particularly their urging some inventions of their own, as commanded, and under obligation by divine precept, now when the very Judaical commanded rites were so suddenly to be laid aside, nailed to the cross, solemnly canceled and abolished by Christ.  
And 2. (no farther to demand his reasons, but) to admire his constancy to himself; that before the Diatribe of Christmas, and other (sure Christian) festivals, he hath thought meet to prefix that text Gal. 4. 9, 10. of observing days, months, times, years, so peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Sabbaths, New Moons, Anniverssaries, and Jubiles, but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly feast of Christ's birth, then to the weekly of his Resurrection.  
To which we shall associate his two Latin sentences, the one out of S. Austin of worshipping God as he hath commanded; the other out of S. Cyprian, of the vanity of irrational customs, and remind him that we design no other worship of God upon Christmas day, but such as we are sure he hath commanded at all times, that of prayer and thanksgiving etc. and that the incarnation of Christ was a competent reason to found a custom of commemorating it after this manner, we shall find a perfect harmony and consent in all his discords, and that is all I shall return to his frontispieces, designed to infuse prejudices into the Reader, to blast beforehand, what he meant to answer.    

CHAP. II. Of M. C. his Preface.  

Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes. Comparing of Superstition and Will-worship to Heresy. Accounting Superstition our virtue.  
'tIs now more than time that we think of entering, and yet there is a Preface still behind, which expects to be taken notice of, as being a very friendly recapitulation of the grounds of my great mistakes, the unhappy causes of those my miscarriages, which he hath discovered in the ensuing Exercitations.  
But I that am not yet by all his Diatribe so instructed, or improved, as to discern one real misadventure in those discourses, find it impossible for me to be edified by this his charity; I must be showed my disease, before Hypocrates himself can point me out the causes of it, and therefore my briefest return to his preface, is but to beseech him to reserve his discourse of causes, till the effects shall be so visible, as to call for it; and if this be not a sufficient reply to all of it, What is behind, will easily be referred to this one head, the injustices and mistakes of the author of it, which I shall but briefly recite to him.  
First, that he hath thought fit to compare Superstition and Will-worship, as they are the subjects of my discourses, with Heresy; whereas, 1. Superstition, in the proper notation of the word, which first I speak of, and vindicate our Church, whether in the ceremonies, or observances, from all appearance of guilt of it, is the worshipping of Demons or deified men, and that sure is worse than heresy in every Christians account, and so inconveniently compared, so as to be equalled with it. And 2, whatever our Church hath admitted, is cleared to have nothing of Superstition in it in any other secundary notion or acception of the word; or if it had, yet as long as it is no more but uncommanded Rites or Festivals, which by the Diatribist himself are thus styled, those sure, in any reason, will not be capable of this comparison, or accusation of being so bad as heresy; and 3. will-worship in the one place where it is used in Scripture, hath no manner of ill, but good character set upon it, being joined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with humility, which I hope is not yet condemned to be quite so criminal and abominable to God, as pride and heresy is acknowledged to be; however in this Preface, before my interpretation of Col. 2. 23. hath been endeavoured to be confuted, this so eminent criminousness thereof was not with more reason, than charity supposed by him.  
2. That he hath affirmed, in a parenthesis, of some men that they account these (and superstition is evidently one of these) their virtues rather than crimes; which again if applied to me, or I think to any Protestant living, is very unkind and unprovoked, having no ground in any part of my Discourse.  
3. That Will-worship hath been by him elsewhere demonstrated to be as criminal as Heresy, which in what notion soever he hath expressed himself to understand the word, is with no truth assumed by him, as far as refers to these Diatribae; and if it be elsewhere attempted, 1. He should have referred us thither, if but to vindicate his own veracity, or else have recited the heads of such demonstrative arguments in this place; or in the second Diatribe; and yet neither of these are done by him.   

Sect. 2. Of being too Religious; of the intention or degree. The Messalians. Neglect of Charity, of particular callings, Eccl. 7. 16. Of multitude of Ceremonies. Too many Ceremonies no argument of too much, but of too little Religion.  
HIS fourth mistake is, that he hath recited it as one cause of my miscarriages in this business that I affirm that a man cannot be too religious, and that I attest this both of the intention or degree, and of the extension or number of Ceremonies taken into the worship of God] Whereas that which I affirm, is evidently this. 1. That in respect of the degree, there is no such thing as nimiety or excess in Religion; no possibility of being Religious in too high a degree, Sect. 33. and this is not denied by Mr. C. nor can be by any pious man; who knows that all his faults are omissions and defects, but never excesses of piety or religion. 2. The main objections imaginable against this, from the practice of the Messalians, or the neglect of the duties of charity and the particular calling, incident to the intense practice of holy duties, were foreseen and prevented there; the Messalians fault was not their excessive practice, but their laying that obligation on themselves and others; the same that Tertullian and the Montanists were guilty of, in respect of other austerities, and so 'twas their dogmatizing, in their imposition of heavy burdens, wherein their heresy (not their superstition) consisted: And the others crime is his idleness, and walking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disorderly, a crime censured by the Apostle, 2 Thes. 3. 11. (yet far enough from Superstition again) and in like manner his want of charity, and so not nimiety, but unseasonableness of piety, contrary to the express words of Christ, I will have mercy and not sacrifice.  
And if yet a third objection be offered from the words of the Preacher, Eccl. 7. 16. (which yet this Diatribist hath not thought fit to offer) Be not righteous overmuch, why shouldst thou destroy thyself? I suppose the answer is obvious, that those words are the intimation of the worldlings objection, who taketh that for excess of duty which brings any damage or worldly destruction upon him, and is answered in the next verse with this solid Aphorism of eternal verity, Be not thou overmuch wicked; why shouldest thou die before thy time? The fears, and from thence the prudential, but oft times very impious practices of the worldling are far the more probable path to the most hasty ruins.  
And so still this branch of my doctrine, as far as asserted by me, was neither untruth, nor miscarriage, nor cause of either in my discourse.  
5. As for the second, that of the extension or number of rites and ceremonies taken into the worship, that there cannot be too many of them, is as far from being my assertion, as that which is most contrary. For upon that head my conclusion is, that as some rites or circumstances of time and place and gesture are absolutely necessary to Religion, and the significativeness of them is no manner of prejudice to the use or institution of them, so if the Disputers will yield but this, that even when they are significative, the use of Ceremonies may be allowed among Christians, I shall then in stead of pleading for the multitude of such, give my vote to the confirming the old Rule, that they be paucae & salubres, few and wholesome; and particularly few for five reasons, set down in the following words, Sect. 39 and sure that is contrary enough to his reporting of my opinion, that there cannot be too many of them, and so that which was no part of my belief, could be no cause of any miscarriage of mine in that business.  
6. To which if I shall now add, that my granting there aught to be few (and so that there may be too many) Ceremonies in a Church, is no way the yielding a possibility that a man may be too religious; but on the contrary when the too many Ceremonies either cause, or occasion, or are accompanied with inward neglects, there is not too much but too little Religion, too much formality, but too little devotion, too much outward Pharisaical washing, but too little inward Christian fervour, as there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, words too many, but too little praying (I may add too many offers of proof, but too little reason) and remind the Diatribist that this was expressly said before in the end 
Mat. 6.  of Sect. 39 by the token of the insectile animals, whose want of blood caused their multitude of legs, I shall then sure have given him ground of conviction, that there were more than one calumny in his assignation of the causes, particularly in this of the first cause of my miscarriages.   

Sect. 3. Mr. C. his distinctions of being too religious, multiplied unnecessarily. Frequency of duty, if secured from other neglects, no excess, nor criminous. Prayer a branch of Natural worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Excess in trust, etc. as well as in Prayer. The Species of worship, and the circumstances thereof. The wide difference between these. Times of Prayer not limited by Scripture: Set days of worship, Gestures, Prostration. Mr. C. his 3. proofs examined, Deut. 4. 2. considered. Apoc. 22. 19 A view of Aquinas 's doctrine in this matter.  
AS for his distinctions, by which he is willing to clear his way, that 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 God requires by the Rule of worship. 2. That in regard of worship commanded, especially natural worship, a man cannot be too religious in reference to the intention (I suppose it should be intention) of the devotion, is in love, fear, trust in God (adding in a cautious parenthesis, that in instituted worship a man may be too religious, as if he pray or fast to the wasting his health or neglect of his calling:) but 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.] I cannot imagine how he hath by either or both of these attained his end, but rather perplexed, then cleared the way for the Reader, which was perfectly strait, and abundantly explicate, before he took upon him to be the harbinger..  
For 1. the two latter members of both his distinctions are directly the same, and so I am sure there was too much of his distinctions, tautology I suppose is such a nimiety, and such sure is this [A man that gives more than God requires by the rule of worship is too religious] and [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.]  
Secondly, for his Parenthesis, it was perfectly prevented in the tract of Superstition § 33. and so was a 2d. nimiety, being added without all necessity or use, it being there acknowledged that in a frequent or intense practice of holy duties there might be some incident fault, viz. neglect of duties of charity or particular callings; and wasting of health through fasting immoderately, bears analogy with these.  
But than it was forewarned, that the fault herein was not the excess of Religion, but omission of other necessary duties, and that demonstrated by this, because if that frequency, whether of prayer or fasting, wherein is the supposed excess, be either in another man, or in that man (whose excess is accused) at another time, separated and secured from those neglects, or omissions of those other duties, the very same frequency and intention were his virtue not his crime, which therefore still prejudges this from being an instance of the thing in hand, that a man may be too religious.  
Thirdly, his difference, in this respect of nimiety, betwixt natural and instituted worship, is perfectly vain and useless to his design, even as he himself hath explicated it, placing love, fear, trust in God under the first head, and prayer and fasting under the other.  
For 1. I must remind him that prayer is as properly a branch of natural worship, as love, or fear, or trust can be imagined to be, being, 1. inseparable from trust, 2. a necessary and natural means of acknowledging God's fullness and our wants, 3. containing under it thanksgiving, praising God, which is the prime way of honouring God (He that praiseth me honoureth me, saith David) and sure that honouring of God, a most peculiar branch of natural worship, dictated by the nature of a creature, and taught by all naturalists that acknowledged any God, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Pythagorean verses, honour the Gods, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in Phocylides) and both the petitory and the Eucharistical comprehended under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worshipping the Gods, in Plutarch, which Xenophon tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the primeval law acknowledged 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  among all men, and Hierocles, having defined Piety to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the captain of all virtues, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as having respect to the divine cause, he adds that the precept concerning that in the golden verses, had justly the precedence and deference before all laws, to give the Gods that honour which is due unto them, and all things else according to that order 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 10.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the creative law (that sure is the Christians law of Nature) together with their being, had afforded them. But perhaps such evidences as these are the Philosophy against which the Reader was to be forewarned in the title page, and therefore,  
Secondly, I must add, to demonstrate the uselessness of his distinction in this place, that it is as possible to exceed in trust, in fear, nay even in love, as it is in prayer; Thus he that so trusts in God, as not to fear; he that trusts him with the end, so as to neglect the means, parallel to him that prays and neglects his calling; he that trusts and relies and hopes, but doth not purify, (performs not the Evangelical condition) every one of these is, in proportion with M. C. his instances of prayer and fasting, an exceeder in trust, we are wont to express it by presuming.  
2. He that so fears, as not to love, that fears where no fear is, that walks accurately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a fool, he will be as properly an exceeder in fear.  
3. He that so loves God again, either as not to fear God, or as not to love his brother also; he that hath a zeal to God, but not according to knowledge, he is in like manner an exceeder in love. And yet all this while none of these are religious too much, but too little, though they exceed the bounds of one part of duty, they are defective in another, and 'tis this defect, not that other exceeding, that is criminous, These things ought they to have done, but not to leave the other undone; and these omissions are their crimes, and as truly so in the natural as in the instituted worship, though if the instituted worship in any branch be preferred before any branch of natural duty, or be more intensely and frequently practised, to the neglecting thereof, this may be a greater fault then if one part of natural worship be intended to the detriment of another either superior or equal to it, as if Sacrifice (which I acknowledge an instituted worship) be intended or pressed to the omission of necessary charities, ceremonies to the slacking of the inward fervour, or the like.  
So that still all that this Diatribist's subdivided distinctions have done for us (beside discovering his own mistakes) is only this, to propose one sort of things, wherein in his opinion, a man may be too religious, viz. in giving God more than he requires by the rule of worship, or, as again he expresseth it, by the least addition to the rule of worship, which, saith he, is too much, and such a man may be too religious. And this being the only product of his distinction, is, as I intimated, so far from clearing, that it is the perplexing and intrieating the business, which was formerly clear enough, the leading the Reader not out but into Meanders, an intanglement of the clue, a Sphinx instead of an Oedipus.  
For there was no such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before, nothing so difficult, so involved, of so incertain and dubious signification as this which now he calls [giving God more than he requires by the rule of worship] and explains by [uncommanded worship, and, the least addition to the rule of worship.]  
I shall evince the truth of what I now say, and with the same hand clear again what he hath clouded, by ask him but this one question, Doth he mean in these words [more] and [Addition] any new species or sort of worship, neither prescribed by the law of Nature, nor instituted by any positive law of God? or doth he design only some circumstance only, or ceremony, which being not of the intrinsic nature or essence of worship, but only accidental to it, is not particularly commanded or prescribed by the word of God, the rule of worship? such are the time, the place, the gestures, and such outward, but some of them inseparable attendants of worship.  
I shall desire to secure my expressions from obscurity and mistakes, and therefore to be as explicit as may be; Prayer is a species of worship; praying on the Lord's day, on Christmas day, observing constant hours of prayer, thrice, seven, ten times every day, is each of them a circumstance adherent to Prayer; some time is necessary and inseparable from Prayer, but every of these times forementioned are not so, he that prays but thrice doth not pray seven or ten times a day, So again the place of prayer may give it a different denomination, either of public or private; the manner may render it more or less solemn, the gestures more or less reverend or irreverent, the increase, letting down of ardour, devout or formal, and there are many sorts, and degrees of each of these, but these do not constitute new or several sorts of worship, but all are accidents of one and the same special of worship, viz. of Prayer.  
Here then is a wide difference, and if his meaning were of the species or sorts of worship, than I never doubted to affirm with him, that all uncommanded worship is an excess, if he please, (an error, I should rather say) a setting up that for worship of God, which is not worship, nay perhaps quite contrary to worship; and this sure was never justified by me explicitly, or implicitly, in conclusions, or in grounds and principles of thus concluding, and so still this hath not been useful to me to discover any mistake of mine.  
The second than is the only branch remaining, of which his words, as referring to me, can possibly be understood, and then 'twil prove so far from being any misadventure of mine, that it will devolve all absurdity upon the Diatribist.  
For I shall demand, Hath the rule of worship, i. e. the Scripture, any where prescribed the times, the places, the gestures, and all the circumstances of the worship of God, and that both positively and exclusively, so that he that prays oftener than the Scripture expressly commands, or on any day not assigned to that purpose by Scripture, sins in so doing, adds to the rule, gives more than God requires, doth too much, is too religious, is criminous and abominable to God in so doing? every of these must be the affirmations of this Diatribist, if this 2d. meaning be his, and the like he is obliged to say again of him that prays in any place, in any manner, in any gesture, which the word of Scripture, the rule of worship hath not commanded.  
And because this is by all reason to be resolved to be his meaning, or else his whole Book is perfectly cast away, a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or beating the air, without me or any man else to be his adversary, I shall at the present suppose it so, and show him, as deictically as he can wish, the absurdities of it.  
And 1. for the times of prayer, I demand, What hath the rule of worship, the Scripture prescribed? hath it prescribed morning and evening Prayer, and that both positively, and exclusively to any more? If so, then by the standard of this Diatribist's doctrine, david's or daniel's praying three times a day, adding the noon day season to the other two, must be criminous and abominable: or if he shall pitch upon any other number of times, as prescribed by the Rule, than I shall add an unite more to that number and demand, whether that addition will add abomination to his performances? If he saith it will, though I might press that affirmation with absurdities enough, yet I shall spare it, and only demand the proof from the Scripture for this assertion, and when he gives it me forfeit all my pretensions to the understanding that sacred book; but if he cannot produce any such Scripture, then is my Censor the guilty person, the very dogmatizer, that teacheth for Doctrines or Commandments of God, his own Dictates, which I must suppose to be the traditions of a man, and the doing so, I cannot resist to be a nimiety, but not of religion, that I yet discern.  
In like manner for set days to be consecrated to the worship of God, for fasting or for prayer, I demand how many every week or every year hath the Rule of worship prescribed? Or what rule of worship shall be appealed to? the Law of Moses, or the Gospel of Christ? His answer to this question will involve him in intricacies enough: If the Law of Moses be the rule, than he knows all the New Moons and feasts of the Jews, and Sabbatick years and Jubilees must return upon him: If the Gospel of Christ, which hath certainly abolished all these, and, as he supposeth, set up the Lordsday, instead of them all, then 1. I demand in what words of the New Testament the weekly observation of this is commanded? and 2. in what words the observing all others but that, particularly the Feast of Easter, the annual commemorative of the Resurrection, is interdicted, and whether the weekly remembrance of so great a mercy, being so acceptable to God, it be reasonable to think the annual, abominable before him? And the same question soon extends itself to the day of Christ's Incarnation, Passion, Ascension, etc. and if of each of these he shall define and pronounce them unlawful, without testimony and verdict from the Rule of worship the Scripture, than he is the Dogmatizer, that hath added to the Rule, more interdicts than are there to be met with, and so still he is the man guilty of the nimiety.  
So again for gestures in the worship of God, I demand, What is the gesture of prayer, prescribed by the Rule? Is it standing, sitting, or kneeling, any, or all of these, or any fourth superadded to these? If the Rule have prescribed none, then according to his doctrine again, any of these must be criminous additions to the Rule, abominable, etc. If the rule have prescribed some one, than all others, beside that one, must fall under the same severity, that that one, had done, if it had not been prescribed: and if all three are under several precepts, and so the whole Rule obeyed by retaining these three, then still I shall mention a fourth, that of prostration, whether will the old penitents, in the porch, or on the pavement, every man in his closet and recess, and still the question returns, whether this be criminous, and by what part of the rule of worship it appears to be so?  
Necdum finitus the enumeration of the Diatribists inextricable difficulties is not yet at an end, but infinitely multipliable by every act of Religious Fast, and of Almsgiving, the two other sorts of God's worship (as Aquinas (owned here by the Diatribist) hath defined from the sixth of Matthew) the proportions or degrees of each of which are yet no where defined in the Scripture. But I suppose it cannot now be necessary, that I farther confirm what is so evident already.  
Else I might yet farther proceed from the duties of the first to the second Table, and demand whether any thing that is done (out of the service of God) for which there is no command, be a criminous excess? Certainly the Analogy will hold, God having given the Rule for justice and charity, as well as worship, and then whatsoever of any kind is not under precept, must by this argument be under interdict, and so there will be nothing left indifferent in the world: A conclusion that some men which have held Mr. C. his hypothesis have rationally enlarged to, finding it necessary, and unavoidably deduced from thence: But I discern not yet, that Mr. C. hath thus improved his principle, though sure whensoever it is for his turn, it is thus improvable.  
But Mr. C. hath added three proofs to his affirmation, and how unreconcilable soever with common notions that is, yet those must deserve to be heeded; And his first proof is this, If a man or Church may add to the Rules of Religion, then be or they may be too Religious: But Ergo.  
Here it must be remembered, that the thing which he had proposed to himself to prove, was this, that 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: And this, saith he, I prove, 1. If a man or Church may add to the rule of religion, etc. Of this 1. I desire to be told, whether it be not a mere idem per idem, a proving a thing by itself, and whether that be not contrary to all rules of syllogizing, where the medium of probation is never to enter the conclusion, as here most evidently it doth.  
Having said this to the form, 'tis not needful that I say any thing to the matter of this proof, it being the very thing that I have spoken to all this while, and by that distinction, of the sorts and circumstances of worship, I have competently showed, that it hath no force against me; that indeed he that introduces any new part of divine worship, is a presumptuous assumer, doth more than he should, because that which he should not do, and so that the Major is false, instead of clear; he that thus adds, and imposeth on God and his word, is not hereby too religious, but too bold, and was never pleaded for in the least, by my treatise of Superstition.  
The inconsequence of this Major will more appear, by considering the proof of the Assumption, which he annexes, The assumption, saith he, is proved by Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited.  
But I pray doth he that prostrates himself in prayer, add to the word of God? then sure he that walks in the garden, doth so too, much more he that makes any such deductions from Scripture, as this Diatribist here doth, (for not only the analogy enforceth this, but it is also to be remembered, that the laws which had here been given by Moses, were all sorts of duties of common life, towards ourselves, and our brethren, as well as of worship toward God, and so this Text must exclude all other uncommanded actions, as well as worships) The words in Deuteronomy are these, Ye shall not add to the word that I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad custodiendum, and in the same sense the Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to observe, or that ye may observe that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God, not to make any change in God's commands, either to pretend more liberties, or fewer obligations, or again more obligations and fewer liberties, to be delivered them by God, than those which he had then delivered by Moses, but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts, and accordingly the Septuagint renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye shall keep, the Latin, custodite keep, and the Syriack, said observate, but keep the commandments, by that opposition showing that to be the meaning of not adding or diminishing, viz. paying an obedience to God's commands. And the same sense in the like words we have again Apoc. 22. 18, 19 to shut up the great prophecy in the New Testament; And then, I pray, is he that offends against either of these two texts, too Religious? Is it not more true on the contrary, that he is a false Prophet, and a sacrilegious person, that pretends the word of the Lord for that which God hath not spoken to him? But this crime I hope every man is not guilty of, that bows or kneels or prostrates himself in prayer, by such outward gestures both signifying, and inflaming the inward fervour of the heart, but not inserting any precept of doing thus, either into the book of Deuteronomy, or the Apocalypse. And this may suffice for his first proof.  
His second proof is from the saying of the great School man, that Religion is a moral virtue (or very like it) and stands between two extremes, Ergo, a man may be too much religious, as well as too little.  
First, I answer to the antecedent, that if it be remembered what the two extremes are, between which religion, in Aquinas, stands, the consequent will never be inferred from it. The extremes are on one side Superstition, on the other irreligion, superstition is again, saith he, of two sorts, either 1. the worshipping of a creature (of false Gods, or more Gods then one, as in Tertullian adv. Marc. l. 1. c. 5. speaking of the worshipping of two Gods, Vererer, saith he, ne abundantia officii superstitio potius quam religio crederetur, I should fear such abundance of officiousness would be rather believed superstition then religion; and S. Augustine, and out of him 
2● 2●. qu. 92. art. 1.  Aquinas, tangis primam chordam qua colitur unus Deus, & cecidit bestia superstitionis, the beast of superstition is destroyed by the first string of the Decachord, the first commandment of the Decalogue, prescribing the worship of one God.) or 2. cum Deo illegitimus cultus tribuitur, giving undue worship to God, and neither of these notions of superstition will be at all useful to the Diatribist to prove his conclusion.  
If from the former of these he should conclude that a man may be too religious, 'tis plain that this must be his meaning, that a man may be a Polytheist, a worshipper of false Gods, but I hope, in this sense, he that observes the ceremonies of the Church of England, he that commemorates the birth of Christ on the 25 of Deber, will not be said to be too religious.  
As for the 2. that of cultus illegitimus, or indebitus, undue worship of the true God (which alone can possibly be deemed for the Diatribist's purpose) my answer shall be more particular, by viewing & weighing the words in Aquinas which are here referred to: though the place be not set down by the Diatribist, I suppose it must be 2 d1 2 d2 either quest. 81. Art. 1. or else qu. 92. Art. 1. in conclus. which indeed hath these words, Religio est virtus moralis, omnis autem virtus moralis in medio consist it, Religion is a moral virtue, and every moral virtue consists in the middle, citing it (with a sicut suprà dictum est) from the former place qu. 81. Art. 5. Now the sum of that Article is this, that 
Resp. ad. 3.  Religion is neither a Theological nor an Intellectual, but a moral virtue, as being a branch of justice, in giving to God that which belongs to him, and that the due medium, wherein this, as all moral virtue consists, is to be taken, not as the middle point between two passions, the 
Vid 1. 2. q. 64. Art. 2.  medium rei (as ordinarily moral virtue is the moderating of passions, reducing them to a mediocrity, or temper, or equilibration betwixt the excess and defect) but according to some equality, in respect of God, 
Ibid.  medium rationis, interpreting what he means by that, viz. equality, not absolutely, because we cannot give God so much as belongs to him, but secundum quandam considerationem humanae facultatis & divinae acceptationis (by considering what man is able to do, and what God will accept; As for superfluity in such things as these, which belong to the worship of God, there can be none, saith he, secundum circumstantiam quanti, as to the circumstance of quantity. I cannot do too much in the worship of God, I cannot offend that way but, as 
l. 2. q. 64. Art. 4 in corp.  elsewhere he saith of this, and the like, tanto est melius, quanto magis acceditur ad summum, it is so much the better, by how much it comes nearer the highest. All the superfluity possible is as to the other circumstances, and he names but three, 1. cui non debet, by exhibiting divine worship to him to whom it ought not to be exhibited, 2. quando non debet, by giving it at a time when it ought not, (when having formerly been acceptable to God, 'tis now outdated) 3. in respect of other circumstances, prout non debet, in a manner wherein it ought not.  
By this it appears already, how incompetent this testimony from Aquinas is, to prove the conclusion proposed by the Diatribist, that every thing in the worship of God which is not commanded by God, is too much. For sure every thing that is not commanded, is not presently forbidden, nor consequently offends against the prout debet, as it ought, the due manner, time, or other circumstances of it. If there be any difficulty in that phrase [prout debet, as it ought] and it be conceived to signify so as is particularly commanded by God, and è contra, that what ever is done, being not particularly commanded by God, is prout non debet, as it ought not, this is certainly a mistake, and very distant from Aquinas' sense, who means by cultus debitus, due worship, any acts of worship, 
2 d● 2 d● q. 81. Art. 5. in aorp.  qui ad Dei reverentiam fiunt, which are done to the honour of God, with considering whether they be under precept or not, and consequently with him cultus indebitus, undue worship, is such as is done to the dishonour, at least not to the honour of God, as when of Idolatry he saith, that it 
Q. 92. art. 2. corp.  exhibits divine reverence, indebitè, unduly to the creature.  
In full accord with this it is, that in that other text qu. 92. art. 1. Superstition is by him defined to be a vice opposed to religion in the excess, whereby a man gives worship to him to whom he ought not, or not in a manner that he ought, meaning as he explains himself, not that of quantity, but in respect of other circumstances, when either it is fastened on a wrong object, divine worship to that which is not God, (which sure is against, not only without the command of God) or done in a wrong manner, i. e. when any thing is done in the divine worship, 
In resp. ad tertium.  quod fieri non debet, which ought not to be done, and he 
Art. 2. in resp. ad tertium.  instances, si quis temporibus gratiae vellet colere Deum secundum veteris legis ritum, If any man under Christianity would worship God after the rites of the old law, which sure are not only not commanded but forbidden under Christ, and so are a proper instance of the quando non debet the undue circumstance of time, mentioned particularly in the former place, and convinces that which I assigned to be the meaning of it. I need add no more in this place concerning the testimony of Aquinas. Other mentions of his opinion in this matter, will hereafter occur, and then I shall have occasion to speak more to them.  
His 3. proof is from the Doctors own concession, who, saith he, grants there may be a nimiety or excess of religion, and adds words in such a style as are absolutely nonsense, even when the [not] (which I suppose the insertion of the Printer) is blotted out, thus there may be a nimiety in adding, and so is an exceeder in the fear and service of God.  
But to pass by that, I answer, 1. that the Dr. no where useth that phrase, a nimiety or excess of religion, the words [of religion] are inserted by the citer and honestly put in different letters, to note them to be his own.  
The matter is plain, I there speak of an excess of fear, but not of religion (see the beginning of §. 46. of the Tr. of superstit.) and though I after say, that he that thinks himself bound or obliges others, as from God, when God neither commands nor forbids, and so adds to the commands of God, and fears where there is no reason to fear, is an exceeder in the fear and service of God, yet neither is that excess of religion, nor indeed excess of fear or of service of God, but the meaning is apparently this, that in fearing God, and serving God he is guilty of some other excess, not an excess of fear of God, but fearing somewhat else, which he fancies to come from God, when it doth not, this fear of that something else, is an excessive fear more than religion suggests to him, and yet the unhappiness of it is, this interposeth itself in religion.  
This will be more evident by an example, suppose a man to fancy that by God's law he ought to kill his Father, and fears God's wrath if he doth not, this man's fear is excessive, but his religion is not, he is an exceeder in the service of God, if he do that in God's service, which is no part of it, but quite contrary to it, but doth not meanwhile serve God too much, but too little, doth not exceed but fall short, and so is far from being too religious.  
There was certainly great need of Arguments, when this was thought sit to be produced to me, who sure knew my own meaning when I thus spoke, and was likely enough to be able to give this account of it. As it is, I have done with his first discovery of causes of my miscarriages, and shall now hasten to the second.   

Sect. 4. Excess of Religion. Super statutum. Addition to the Rule. Doctrines. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 17. 22. Act. 25. 29. Six concessions. Superstitiosus. Worshipping of Angels. Superstitum cultus. Slavish fear. Religion in Epicurus. Fear of punishment in sons; in wicked men. The necessity thereof. Dogmatizing. Placing more virtue in things then belongs to them.  
THe second cause of the Doctor's miscarriages, saith he, is his misprision, That excess in Religion is not well called Superstition, or that Superstition is not excess of Religion. Sect. 27 etc.  
To this I answer, 1. That my memory not suggesting unto me, that I was at all guilty of this misprision, thus unlimitedly charged on me, I therefore read over that 27. and the two following Sections, to discern what it was that had given him occasion to affirm this, and there I find no such thing. The subject of Section 27. being the improperness of their expressions, who resolve Superstition, simply and abstractly taken, in all Authors, to signify evil; of Sect. 28. a second inconsequence, that the use of Ceremonies not prescribed by Christ, should first be called Superstition, then condemned for deserving that title; of the 29. a third inconsequent, that men should abstain from some indifferent Ceremonies, as Superstitious, and not expect to be counted superstitious for obliging themselves to do the contrary. But sure none of these, nor all together, do at all yield any ground for that conclusion, which he hath here misreported from them, and that one would think, were a competent answer to this second discovery of causes.  
But then 2. till the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be explained, and agreed on, what is meant by excess of religion, 'tis not possible for me to affirm or deny, to acknowledge or disclaim universally, what I am said to affirm. To deal plainly then, and without all ambiguity, If by excess of Religion he understand the doing of any thing in the worship of God, which Gods word doth not command (which is the only thing which is of controversy betwixt us, as hath already been manifested) than I stick not to deny that this is Superstition, or that superstition in any authentic notion, or in the origination of the word whether Greek or Latin, doth import or comporhend this, and if he shall fly to any other sort of excess, and contend that to be it of which he speaks, this will be then the fallacy or lying hid in ambiguities, which I took care to deprive him of in the last Section.  
4. But he expresses sufficiently what excess in religion he means, by the proof which he first offers to confirm his affirmative. For, for this he brings three proofs, and the first is this, because it is an addition to the rule of worship, and so an excess, as super statutum.  
5. Here though it be very hard to reduce this to any formal or legal proof of the proposition for which it was designed (and besides, it must be observed, in passing, that the medium here used, is no fitter for the proving of this then of the last proposition; for it is the same to both, and so indeed it is equally proper for both, or for what else he please) yet thus much is clear from it, that by excess in Religion he means addition to the Rule, and that we formerly discerned to signify with him the doing any thing uncommanded in the service of God, and to that we have replied abundantly in the last Section.  
But he adds for the confirmation of his proof, one thing not said before, that all such addition to the Rule must be superstition forsooth, because it is super statutum, above what is commanded, supposing, it seems, that that is the notation of the word superstition. And then I desire the Diatribist's leave, that it may for once be my turn to make discoveries of causes, to propose to him, at least for consideration, whether this may not be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fundamental procreative mistake, the having inconsiderately in his youth swallowed this etymology of the word superstition (I am unwilling to fancy the Diatribist to be the inventor of it) as if it were so called from supra statutum, above what is commanded.  
If this be not a right conjecture, I shall profess to be at an end of my search of causes; But if it be, I desire him to allow me the favour once to disabuse him, by exacting this justice from him to himself, to consider whether any Laws of derivation, composition or analogy can permit him seriously to believe that [statutum] is ingredient in compounding Superstition, or that it can be by any Rules deduced from any word in the Latin tongue, but superstes, superstitis, and the rather because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is resolved to be the parallel Greek to the Latin superstition, and is visibly so, if it be allowed to be deduced from superstitum cultus, hath nothing to do with super statutum, but is in plain words a worshipping of Demons.  
Of this sure I have said enough in the Treatise of Superstition, to satisfy any Scholar, that knows in the least, what belongs to the use or the nature of words, and so much, it seems, that Mr. C. confesses that the original of the word was Heathenish, to signify superstitum cultus, and only adds (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in civility or fidelity to his cause) that though this be true, yet 'tis well applied by Divines to those additions made to the Rule of worship. But I pray what is this but to grant the premises, and deny the conclusion? 'tis certain and by him acknowledged, that the original of the word is another thing not super statutum, what then can he tolerably mean by ['tis well applied by Divines]? can Divines do well to apply superstitio to super statutum, when that is no way the nature of the word? Or can any proof be brought from hence to conclude superstition an excess, or addition to the rule, because it is super statutum, when there is no affinity between super statutum and superstition? what is or can be unreasonable, if this be not?  
And so it appears how little truth there is in that which shuts up this first reason [That which the Old Testament calls addition to the word, the New calls doctrines, traditions of men, will-worship, superstition.] In which few words as there be many infirm parts, 1. That additions to the word are in the N. T. called Doctrines I suppose he means teaching somewhat else for doctrines, Mat. 15 9 assuming them to be such when they are not: So again, Mar. 7. 7. where yet the word Doctrines signifies the Scripture or Doctrine of God, and so the teaching their own traditions for doctrines, is adding them to the Scripture, Doctrines there simply signifying not that addition, but that to which the addition is made) and 2. that they are called will-worship (the contrary of which is proved in the Treatise of will-worship, and here to suppose it, is a begging of the question) so sure this is a third, that additions to the rule of worship, are any where in the New T. called superstition, I desire he will show me one such place, for my Concordance will not afford it me.  
'tis but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only twice there used: First, Act. 17. 22. by St. Paul of the Athenians, whom he perceived to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more superstitious than others: But these sure never meddled with, and so added not to the true rule of worship, any otherwise then as all that abandon it, add to it, live by some other false rule, and mind not that; and if they are, for so doing, to be styled adders to the rule of Worship, adulterers are so in like manner, and so by that measure or standard, every sin in the world is superstition.  
Secondly, the word is used, Act. 25. 29. where Festus speaks of Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, own superstition, but sure meant not to accuse him of adding to his or the Jews rule of worship, but understood his own Religion, and nothing else by that phrase. And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here are as many misadventures amasst together, as could well be crowded into so few words.  
His second proof now follows, thus, Because as the defect in Religion is called profaneness, so the excess is called superstition, as standing in opposition to it. Alas, it seems there is great need of proofs, for this again, as the former, was the very medium to prove the first proposition, and so either the first, and this second proposition of his are all one (and then why was it cut in two, by Lucian's beetle?) or else these proofs are very excellent instruments, fitted for all turns indifferently. However it is, I shall not need provide new answers to it, but remand it to the former Section, where it was considered to the utmost it could pretend: Only if he please, I shall put it in form for him, thus. The worship of the many false Gods or Demons is an excess opposed to Religion, or worship of the one true God of heaven and earth, in Aquinas' opinion, and so also is the worshipping the true God after an undue or unlawful manner, ergo, the using any Ceremony (in the worship of the true God) which the Scripture hath not commanded, is superstition, and superstition is that: As if he should say, superstition is that, because it is somewhat else, as extremely distant from that, as that which is not God is from God, or as unlawful (for so is superstition) is from lawful, for such is that which is not prohibited.  
13. A third proof he now adds of his affirmation, and that after the manner observed in his former argument from the Doctors own concessions, and no less than five, nay the fourth number being twice repeated, no less than six of them: And if I have so liberally granted it, I wonder how it came to be my charge, and that as the cause of my miscarriages, that I denied it.  
But 'tis strange to see what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can do, fancy first, and next accuse me of denying a thing grosso modo, and to prove me to have erred in thus denying, produce six several senses, wherein I have granted it, whereas there is in the whole indictment but one pretended, wherein I had denied it. In all reason those six concessions might have reconciled the Diatribist to me, and persuaded him that I was of his mind, rather than one single appearance of dissenting have thus provoked him.  
The Doctor's Concessions, such as they are, are evidently reconcileable with all that he hath proposed, in that Tract of Superstition, and the descending to a particular view of them, as they are marshaled up by the Diatribist, will take away all doubt in this matter.  
First, saith he, he grants that superstitions may denote such an excess, Sect. 31. Here I demand what Mr. C. means by such an excess? that indeed is thus far answered already, that he means an excess of Religion: But what excess in Religion? The super statutum, every addition to the rule of worship, i. e. every uncommanded circumstance, or Ceremony in the worship of God? Thus he must mean, if he be constant to himself, and if the Doctor's Concessions yield him any appearance of proof for his affirmative. But to see the luck of it, this first citation from the Doctor is so far from yielding him any such testimony, that it is indeed the quite contrary; for that which the Doctor there observes Sect. 31. is this, that the word superstitiosus may indeed denote such excess from the force of the termination osus, but this no more than the word religiosus also denotes, in the opinion of Agellius out of Nigidius Figulus, and consequently, that 1. Superstitio and Religio were all one in that same Author's opinion: and 2. that it is the animadversion of Agellius upon that Author, that all such excesses are not culpable, or taken in ill, but good senses. And then was not this a dangerous concession, fit to be called out in judgement against me, than which nothing could be more direct to the asserting mine, and refuting the Diatribists hypothesis?  
If this account of the word superstitiosus were not sufficient, to secure my pretensions, which in that place were only this, that superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess. I might farther add, that even when the word superstitiosus; is but a bare denominative from superstitio, and yet is used in an ill sense, as when we Christians say a superstitious person, the account is clear, that superstition there signifies Heathen-worship, or somewhat proportionable to it 
Superstitiosum est quicquid ab hominibus institutum est ad facienda & colenda idola pertinens. August: the doctr. Christ: l. 2. c. 20.  worshipping of others beside the one true God; and by analogy with that notion of the substantive, the adjective fitly denotes him that acts like one of those false worshippers, or agrees with them in some eminent thing, which is a branch of their false worship, as he that makes observations of dreams, and ominous days, or occurrences, is said commonly to be superstitious herein, i. e. to imitate the Auguries of the Heathen, and many the like.  
The 2. concession, that the worship of Angels is an excess or addition to the object of worship, and by him styled that crime of superstition] a man would wonder to see produced by the Diatribist against me. 'tis certain I make the worship of Angel's superstition, worshipping those fellow creatures, which a Christian ought not to worship; But is this an excess of religion, or not rather of impiety? worshipping of the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides or over and above the creator. 'tis true, this is an addition to the object of worship, as death is an addition to life, i. e. destruction to the oneness of that, which ought alone to be worshipped, and admits no rival (ye cannot serve God and Mammon, nor worship the one God, if ye impart and lavish out that incommunicable privilege to any other) and so adultery is an addition to the object of marital love and fidelity: But than what is this to the prejudice of uncommanded ceremonies? the using of which super statutum, the Diatribist is to demonstrate to be superstition, for about that only, he knows, the controversy is betwixt us.  
The 3. concession is just parallel to this, and in part the same, superstitum cultus, saith he, the worship of the Worthies 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.] I must not repeat what was so lately said, though the Diatribist will. 'tis evident I affirm all these to be superstition, but the using of an uncommanded rite is none of these, what heathen worthy, Saint, or Angel is worshipped or idolised by my prostrating myself in the worship of the true God, by my bowing at the name of Jesus etc. As for the reason why the worship of heathen Worthies and Saints, and Angels by analogy, is called superstition, it is strange again what care of interest can do. The reason, one would think, was visible enough to the Diatribist, in the very naming of superstitum cultus, these Worthies and Saints are superstites, supposed to live after death (sure that is the notion of superstes) and so the worshipping of such is superstition, and as the Angels, so the souls of the Worthies that thus survive the bodies (and in the heathens theology are removed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the fortunate Islands, in the Christians, to heaven or paradise, or Abraham's bosom) are solemnly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so the worshipping of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that is superstition. Is not this reason enough for the justifying the propriety of the use of a word, that it perfectly accords with the origination of it both in Greek and Latin? and then what need of his capriccio, [why? but that it adds to the rule of worship] Certainly so doth sacrilege (even when it robs God] add to the rule of worship, in this sense, doing something which the rule commands not, no nor permits, and yet that is not superstition.  
The 4. concession produced is yet more strange. A slavish fear saith he, 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] and he hath adventured to cite the sections, wherein 'tis granted by me. §. 24. 25. of the treatise of superstition. Herein the Reader will easily satisfy himself by his own eyes; In a word, those sections say no syllable of slavish fear, or any such matter (and yet the Printer hath not mistaken his figures) all that they say, is this, that superstitio sometimes signifies in authors any part of Divine worship, which in obedience to his God, or for fear of vengeance from him, any worshipper doth perform, a thing which every sect likes in themselves, but dislikes in others of a distant worship, and so either honours or defames with the title as of superstition, so of Religion also. Then, that it also signifies a trembling fear of God's punishments due for sin, such as the Epicureans, that denied all providence, were willing to scoff out of the world. And of this notion of superstition, and equally of religion among the Epicureans, and Cicero that took it from them, I had spoken there at large, from §. 14. to §. 20. to which I must remit the Reader, and only add what there I omitted, that all that is there observed would probably receive much light, if we could retrieve one book of Plutarch, which is lost, and instead of which I can now only give him the title of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of superstition to Epicurus, differing (it seems, both by the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently in the subject of it) from that which is now extant of Plutarch's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which hath no considerable aspect on Epicurus, or his followers and Philosophy, either to defend or accuse it. Of this see the learned Gassend in his life of Epicurus.  
But to return, what pretence can there be thus to change my words in an unprofitable citation (when if it had been slavish fear in his notion of it, of which I spoke, yet that had been far enough from the using of uncommanded ceremonies or instituting of Festivals) and instead of [that divine worship which any performs in obedience to his God, or for fear of punishment from him, and which Epicurus desired to scoff out of the world] to substitute slavish fear of God, or an excess of that fear of God which is prescribed as worship in the first commandment?] Can it enter into any Christians heart to think or say, that Epicurus was in the right in that part of his Theology, and consequently that it was an excess of fear which Epicurus desired to exterminate? This is to say, that all religion, belief of hell, infinite punishments apportioned to sinners in another world, are excess of fear, and (under the title of slavish) criminous, and to be cast out. This certainly was Epicurus' meaning, and the verses in Lucretius demonstrate it, where he thus argues,  
— Nam si nullum finem esse putarent  
Aerumnarum homines, nullâ ratione valerent  
Religionibus atque minis obsistere vatum.  
If men should believe endless punishments, they could never resist the religions, and threatenings of the Priests. And who would have expected the Diatribist a favourer of this sect, as he must be, if this fear of God, which Epicurus called Religion or Superstition, be by him looked on as an excess of that worship of the first commandment? for that was Epicurus' very notion of it, placing his own opinion in the midst; and as on one side, downright Atheism, denying any God at all, so on the other, belief of a providence, of rewards and punishments; which as the mother of fear or perturbation, and interrupter of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiet of life (his great aim) and very 
Quid enim interest utrum Deos neges an infames?  injurious to the Gods, he rejected as another extreme, under the title of 
Superstitio error in sanus, amandos timet, quos colit violate. Seneca Epistol. 124.  Superstition. But of this sure I have spoken abundantly, and did not foresee that Mr. C. was to be admonished of this worst principle in all Epicurus his philosophy.  
Yet because he is fallen into it, under colour of the ordinary divinity concerning slavish fear, and because mention of this slavish fear as of a criminous excess, and a branch of superstition recurres very frequently in these Diatribae, I shall not resist the invitation of saying somewhat in this place, once for all, of slavish fear: By that I suppose he understands fear of punishment, as by filial fear, a reverential obedience, proceeding wholly from love, without any thing of fear in it. Concerning this distinction I shall first demand, whether it have any thing of propriety in it, i. e. whether sons may not lawfully and reasonably fear punishment from their parents, in case they shall deserve it, even the greatest punishment, exheredation, and casting out of the family, upon their continuing disobedient and refractory to their father's commands, and whether this very fear be not so useful to restrain the excesses of youth, and keep them within that obedience, that no parent will ever think fit that the child shall know or think that his disobedience, whatsoever the degree of it may be, shall not be thus punished, and lastly, whether it be not duty in the child thus to fear, and proportionably whether this be not applicable to every child of God, especially being exhorted to it, Heb. 4. 1. Let us fear lest a promise being made of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it (adding thereto Heb. 12. 28, 29.) and this distinction being founded in the likeness between a child of God, and a child of an humane parent: If this be so, then there can be no fitness or propriety in the distinction thus explicated, nor can the fear of punishment be discriminatively called slavish, nor with justice defined an excess of fear.  
Secondly, The slavish fear I shall suppose in the Diatribists notion to be such as is in a wicked man, and then it must be either the fear of divine vengeance for sin committed formerly, or for sin at the time of committing it, or for sin before he commit it; and I demand how any of these three fears can by a Christian duly be called an excess, or with any propriety superstition? For ought not the wicked man to fear punishment for his sins past, when God affirms solemnly there is no peace, no peace to such? be not the judgements of God gone out against that man, and if that Lion roar, shall not he fear, if vengeance be denounced from God against him, is it a season for him to cast off fear? or if he doth, is not this carnal security? and is not the contrary apprehension (i. e. fear) necessary to reduce him? in a word, are not the terrors of the Gospel part of the Gospel, and on purpose designed to bring such a man to repentance, and can he be said to believe the Gospel, which believes not that part of it, or will they be motives of Reformation to him, if he do not apply them to himself, in respect of his present state? and can he so apply them, who doth not fear the execution of them?  
So at the very point of committing any wilful sin, ought he not to look upon it, as that against which the wrath of God is denounced, and can he do so, and believe God, and not fear that wrath may fall on him, and that as long as he remains under the power of such sin, he remains under the wrath of God? Are all the evil abodes of an accusing conscience in a vicious person, excess, nay is not the contrary the highest pitch both of presumption and danger, the very root bearing gall and wormwood, to bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of my heart, Deut. 29. 19  
Lastly, before the commission of sin, when he enters into temptation, is not the fear of hell an useful restraint to him, is it not both his duty and his bridle, is there, or can there be any excess in that? should he fear, or should he not fear? If he should not, then what can keep him from running into all excess of riot? shall love of God, or virtue? but the wicked man, as wicked, is supposed to have none of that in his heart: But if he should, if it be his duty to fear, and to fear hell, in case he shall thus go on, then still how can it be an excess?  
The consideration of these few things may perhaps give the Diatribist reason to change his mind concerning slavish fear, and no longer to think it an excess of Religion, nor, as such, capable of the title of Superstition.  
The truth is, what is a miss in such fear, is a defect, not excess, a want of love, not any unproportionable measure of fear, God is made up of goodness, as well as justice, and the Gospel compounded of promises as well as threats and the love of Christ ought to constrein us, as well as the terrors of the Lord to persuade, and he that hath a quick sense of one, and none of the other, he is not an exceeder in fear, but deficient in love, and so still the mention of slavish fear in this place, and frequently in the first exercitation, is very unapplicable to the purpose, for which it is brought, as an instance of an excess of religion, or superstition.  
Some little thing more I shall perhaps be forced to say to it hereafter, but this shall not be repeated, and so must be remembered from hence.  
The 4th Concession of the Drs. is observed to be this, that 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. § 46.] To this I answer, that for them who are resolved to have superstition taken in the sense of nimiety, and in that sense to be opposed to religion, as an extreme to the mediocrity, I did assign this of imposing commandments on God (and so obligations on ourselves, and others) which he never gave, as an excess of fear, a being afraid of God, when we need not, and so proportionable to one notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, arising from the consideration of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which may signify perhaps a trembling, and so cowardly fear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in that composition, And if hereby I have gratified the Diatribist, and yielded the Dogmatizer a Superstitious person, I wonder why this might not have been taken notice of in my behalf, and so saved him the pains of affixing this position on me, that excess in religion is not well called Superstition, which 'tis visible, and by himself now confessed, that in this sense, I affirm it to be; see that 46. §. of Superstition.  
Meanwhile the Drs. hypothesis is still secure, for this no way belongs to the bare using in the private man, or the Magistrates prescribing Ceremonies in the worship of God, neither of them doing it upon pretence of Divine precept.  
The very same reply belongs exactly to my last concession, vouched by him, that 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 by me, §. 45.] For this is another particular, which I allow to be an excess, and when it is not mere folly fit to be comprehended under the style of Superstition, for this farther reason besides those which I there mentioned, because such beliefs as these are mostly borrowed from the heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and are remainders of their practices, as St. Augustine Ep: 73. speaks of the ligatures, Execranda superstitio ligaturarum, in quibus inaures, etc. non ad placendum hominibus, sed ad serviendum daemonibus adhibentur, the accursed superstition of ligatures, among which are the earrings etc. used not for the pleasing of men, but to serve devils. This testimony the Reader may subjoin, if he please, to the Supellex already prepared for him in this kind §. 26. of superst: and discern how far I have been from denying, what I am accused here to deny, and yet as far from yielding him any foundation of concluding, that the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church are in the least degree guilty of Superstition.  
And so much for his second discovery of causes of my (fancied, not real) mistakes.   

Sect. 5. The innocence of Will-worship. Analogy with voluntary oblations under the law. Seeming Contradiction. The authority of chrysostom and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment. Reducing all sins to the Decalogue. Addition to the rule, Worship of Angels. Other sins beside that of Dogmatizing.  
THe 3d. part of his discovery of causes belongs peculiarly to that of Will-worship, thus,  
The third, saith he, is, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Will-worship, is nothing but voluntary worship, as innocent as the freewill offerings etc.] which proposition of mine I must suppose made up of these two parts, 1 that Will-worship is nothing else but voluntary worship; 2 that being so, 'tis innocent, and as innocent as freewill offerings: And in which part of these, one or both, the mistake lies, I am not told, but both together indistinctly are proposed, as my 3d. fundamental miscarriage.  
And then, as to the first, I cannot begin without some remark, that it should be possible to be looked upon by this Diatribist, as a paradox, or mistake, or miscarriage in any man, and such as is meet to be noted, as the most fruitful mother of many more, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Will-worship should be affirmed to be nothing else but voluntary worship. Where I have no farther appeal to make, then either to the ears of all men of common understanding, or to the Glossaries and Interpreters of words. For is there any the nicest difference imaginable betwixt Will-worship and voluntary worship, save that in the latter [voluntary] is of a latter origination, from voluntas, voluntarius; but [will] though perhaps from the Latin originally is yet more anciently enfranchised among us of England, I shall make short work of this, if it be taken for any part of the mistake, by desiring one favour from Mr. C. viz. that he will translate either the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the English, Will-worship, into Latin for me; will it not surely be voluntarius cultus, and is not that being turned again into English, voluntary Worship? What can be more evident than this?  
But it may be hoped that this was not my mistake, but what follows, viz. that this voluntary worship is as innocent as the freewill offering. But it is not possible, that should be the mistake neither, for freewill offerings under the Law were certainly one species of voluntary worship, and so known by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, voluntary, and therefore those being innocent, 'tis certain that all the other fellow species of voluntary worship, bearing proportion with these and having no circumstance to defame them, which the other had not, must needs be innocent also.  
That thus it is, and this is the notion of the word in the only place where it is used in the New Testament, Col. 2. hath already been largely vindicated in the Tract of Will-worship, which the Reader is requested to resort to, and the Annotation on Col. 2. where many more evidences are added to it, which make it superfluous to add yet more in this place; Only I must secure it from the Diatribist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or objections: And the first is by way of velitation, that it seems a contradiction in adjecto, that voluntary worship and uncommanded should be innocent.  
There is no end of disputing about appearances; That may seem to Mr. C. which doth not to other men, and Ammonius tells me this is very ordinarily observable in this very matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many propositions 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. f. 89.  seem indeed to be contradictory, but yet are not such. But I shall ask, Is it what it seems, or is it not? If it be not, why was this mentioned by one, who can distinguish betwixt true and false, colour and varnish, reality and appearance? If it be, I desire to be instructed, what Logician hath so defined contradiction as will any way accord to this expression.  
The only definition or description of contradiction in adjecto that ever I heard of, is, when that which is added is contradictory to that which was first set, and contradictions we know are affirmations and negations of the same thing in the same respect, either formally which the interpreters of Aristotle call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diagonial, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fight one with another in direct form of contradiction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the enunciation [every man] to the negation [not every man] or interpretatively, i. e. by certain consequence or implication, as if I should say, Socrates is not a man, here were a contradiction in adjecto, because in the subject of the proposition, he that had the appellation of Socrates, was supposed to be a man, and yet in the predicate, that is denied of him. But certainly here is no such thing, either formally, or by implication, in this proposition, Voluntary, or uncommanded worship is innocent;] Of forbidden worship this were true, for innocence to be attributed to that, were contradiction in adjecto, but there is a wide difference betwixt forbidden and voluntary, as wide as between unlawful and lawful, all being lawful, which is not forbidden, else there were not universal truth in the Apostles maxim, that sin is a transgression of the Law.  
I shall convince what I say by this plain instance, Theophylact saith of many men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they exceed or transcend many of the commandments; I demand, Do they offend and sin, and are nocent in so doing, or did that holy man think they did? 'tis evident he did not; for he, after his manner, borrows from, and transcribes 
In Rom. 8.  chrysostom, and in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many, he reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spiritual; They, saith he, do many things with desire and appetite, and manifest it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that they do even exceed the commands; It appears therefore that to these two holy and learned men, it seemed not, what to Mr. C. it seems, that there is contradiction in adjecto, in affirming voluntary and uncommanded worship to be innocent. A multitude of the like testimonies are put together in the Annotat. on Col. 2. which may be sufficient to justify me from singularity, that I discern not the fancied seeming contradiction.  
But this affirmation again of the Diatribist will not want its proofs; four, that pretend to that title, are here annexed.  
For 1. saith he, It's expressly against the 2d. commandment which forbids all worship not expressly commanded by God. I must not complain of my eyes, or other faculties, because they are the best that God hath given me; but I may wish for such supplies as Mr. C. hath met with, for else I am sure I shall never see the least glimpse of that which he mentions so expressly out of the 2d. Commandment. What is expressly against the 2d. Commandment, should, me thinks, oppose some express words in it, and then it must follow that there are such express words there, which forbid all worship not commanded by God, and this not only as by worship are meant the sorts and species of worship, but the very accessaries and ceremonies of worship, and all the expressions and emanations of the inward fullness of the religious heart. But my Optic Glass will not afford me any such prospect in the 2d. Commandment: All sorts of graven images, and such like, I have there a fair view of, and an express severe interdict of worshipping them, but for all kinds and all circumstances of worship which are not commanded, kneeling, prostrating the body to the invisible true God, the times and degrees of ardency of worship, the abstinencies, self-denyals attendant on it, sure there is nothing said expressly there, either to command or forbid them, and for any general comprehensive phrase, that can rationally contain a prohibition of all which is not commanded, I can say no more, but that the first verse of Genesis or any other in the Bible, hath as much of this to my eye, as the 2d. Commandment.  
The business we are all this while upon, is, the discovering of causes of mistakes, and therefore I must be excused again, upon the score of the example before me, if I once more attempt to shoot my shaft, and by this first argument pass my conjecture of the cause of the prefacers mistake in this matter. It is the solemn practice of some Casuists, to reduce all sins in the world to some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue; wherein I am not sure that they have aimed aright, for separate gluttony and drunkenness (as sure they may be separated, and yet continue to be sins) from some accidental consequences of them, as wasting of health, which may assign either of them to the 6t. Commandment, and the like, and you will hardly tell whither to reduce the intemperate use of the creature; And so for that sort of lying or false speaking which is no way hurtful, or designed to be hurtful to the neighbour, and many the like instances might be given. But on this I insist not with any concernment, but leave it to prudent consideration, what necessity there is, that all laws natural and positive divine should be reduced to one or more of these 10. Commandments. This is not that which I meant to say, but farther to offer it to consideration, whether it be not visible, that those Casuists which have erred in judging the unlawfulness of some things, have not easily been induced to reduce them to some or other of the Commandments, as offences against the affirmative or negative part, and if not against the words or sense, yet against the Analogy of it.  
According to this practice it is most necessarily consequent, that he that hath been possessed of the unlawfulness of ceremonies and worship uncommanded, and hath not so far considered, as to rectify his judgement in that matter (by weighing this one thing, that whatsoever is not forbidden is lawful, not, whatsoever is not commanded is unlawful) must whensoever he shall write cases of conscience, or comment on the Decalogue, reduce this to some interdict under one of the ten heads, and all the other nine renouncing it, force it in by some appearance of analogy, to the 2d. Commandment; And than it falls out, that so many men, disaffected to the Government and Ceremonies of the Church of England, have written on the Commandments, that it can be no more matter of wonder, that uncommanded worship should be crowded in to the 2d. Commandment (and there long ago imbibed by the Diatribist, and never questioned since) then that Mr. Brightman should find the Church of England of this age, among the seven Cities of Asia in St john's time, or that Mr. Parker should make the using the cross in Baptism, a breach of every one of the ten Commandments, and branch a book in folio, into the Atheism, as I remember, I am sure, the Idolatry, the &c. till at last, the concupiscence of the Cross.  
And then I shall but ask this Diatribist whether he can heartily believe that the use of that ceremony was really guilty of all those several transgressions of the Law of God, and if he shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beseech him to examine over again his own affirmation here, 1. Whether any one man hath said so fully what here he hath, that voluntary and uncommanded worship is expressly against the 2d. Commandment (they that only reduce it thither, fall short of him) 2. Whether they that have thought fit to refer it thither by reduction, have produced any cogent or satisfactory reason for so doing, and the next time he affirms this from them, annex the reason, such as may justify a most rigid conclusion to the consciences of all others who may be concerned in it, either in order to their own practice, or the judging of others. And I shall not farther exagitate this his first proof.  
The 2d proof is the same we have had twice already, for the asserting the two former affirmations, voluntary worship is an addition to the rule of worship, and eo nomine Superstition and that is sinful.] But I have already showed, that all additions to that rule are not Superstition, and that all that is by any called Superstition, is not eo nomine sinful, and so I am safe from that proof also.  
So in like manner from the 3d, which is but another repetition, put in form of question [Why is the worship of Angels and Saints criminal? but because it was invented and added by the will of man?] This question was answered long since, that the worship of all creatures is criminal; because the command is positive and exclusive, that God, and none but the one God is to be worshipped, and though the doing what is not commanded, is not a sin, yet the doing what is forbidden must needs be sinful, and such is the worshipping of Angels etc.  
What he here adds in the close of this 3d proof, that they (I suppose, who worship Angels) do not urge it as a commandment of God] was sure very unnecessarily inserted, For I never doubted but there are other sins besides dogmatizing, and can now promptly suggest to him competent store of instances; sure the murderer is a sinner, though he teach it for a doctrine from heaven, that it is lawful to kill his brother, etc. And then why should not the worshipper of Angels against express precept (Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, Thou shalt not bow down nor worship) be a transgresser of that Commandment, though he oblige not, as from God, any other man to do the like?  
His last proof is ab incommodo, If wilworship, saith he, 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 traditions of men] The answer last given to the appendage of the 3d proof is sufficient to this also. Other faults there may be in worship, beside holding it out as the Commandment of God. It may for the object of worship take in somewhat beside God, or for the ceremonies it may multiply them unprofitably, ridiculously, or it may be, pretend more virtue in them, then really belongs to them, and many the like. But these I mention, because if it be true, what is here suggested, that the worship at Rome, is really superstitious, and that there is a rabble of that worship there, as is supposed in the question, the answer is already given by the very proposal of it, and hath without any violence to my hypothesis, which undertook not to justify all, or any other Churches in their worship, but only that of England, which is known to be free, where Rome, I add, where the Greek Church in as high a degree as Rome, is guilty. And this may serve for the 3d grand discovery of causes.   

Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmas Festival. Of Church Laws.  
THe last ground of mistake assigned by the Diatribist, is, that the Dr. takes for granted, That a Church or particular person hath power to institute and 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 Will-worship.  
If this differ from the third (as in reason it ought, else why should it be added to it?) then the mistake is not only, or so much that I affirm, as that I take for granted, when I ought to prove, that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded by God. Now I shall at once prove my affirmation, and apply it to my Festival as he calls it, and show that I have already proved it, and so not taken it for granted, as is here suggested.  
For the former, I offer this probation, whatsoever is in itself perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God, and that liberty no way retrenched, that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe, But the Christmas Festival or annual commemoration of Christ's birth, is in itself perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God, and that liberty no way retrenched, Ergo.  
Of the major I suppose there can be no doubt, if there be, these three considerations will clear it. 1. Because whatsoever is perfectly free and lawful, that the Church or the Christian hath power to do, unless that liberty be some way retrenched to him; 2. What every particular Christian may freely do, that he may still do, when it is by the Church prescribed or instituted, else that act of the Church prescribing shall render that which it prescribes unlawful, being perfectly lawful before that prescription (and if upon the most Anarchical principles, that should be supposed to have any reason it, than still that liberty is some way retrenched, the contrary to which is supposed in the major proposition.) 3. Because the Church, meaning by that word the Universal Church of God, whether of the Apostles times, including them, chief pastors thereof, or of the purer times succeeding, together with the Governors of each Church succeeding the Apostles, hath the power of Stewards, noted by the Keys entrusted to it by Christ, and consequently may dispose, order, institute for her members, in those things which she shall judge to tend to the honour of God, and to edification, though it be not immediately commanded (so it be not any way prohibited) by God.  
As for the minor that the Christmas Festival is thus free and lawful, doth also appear by the no prohibition of God's in force against it, by the lawfulness of praising God, and commemorating the gift of Christ on any day (one or more) in the year, and consequently on the 25 of December, by the analogy of other Festivals among the people of God in all ages, and by the answer to all objections, to the contrary, and the evidence of the matter, that this liberty hath no way yet been retrencht by God, that gave it. And all this severally cleared in the former discourses, and the chief of them again vindicated here, by answer to the Diatribists pretended discovery of my mistakes.  
On which that I do not now think myself obliged farther to insist, by addition of more evidences, the reason will be soon discerned, by taking notice of the one proof which he here subjoins to this his last ground, in these words. [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, than no man or Church can without sin add any worship to that commanded by God; But the first is true, Ergo.] Where it seems the whole matter is devolved to that one issue, whether the text Deut. 4. 2. and the 2d Commandment (for there is not any other [elsewhere] any other text by the Diatribist produced to that purpose) be sufficient to prejudge the using or instituting any ceremony or Festival, which is not commanded by God; And I hope this suppletory to those former discourses, which hath considered those two texts, hath sufficiently convinced that; And so there is no more now needful to be added to this matter.  
Thus have I traced this Diatribist through every branch of his discovery of causes, and showed, I hope competently, on which side the mistakes lie, and if there be no more miscarriages in those three tracts of Superstition, Will-worship, and Festivals, than this Preface, assigned to that work, hath discovered to me, I shall have no need farther to importune the reader with a Superfluous vindication, unless upon this score only, that 'tis possible that the Diatribist may not have summed up his bill aright, that there may still remain some particular mistakes discoverable by the view of the particulars, which are here omitted in the foot of the account, and then I must not take advantage of false reckoning. And upon this slender account I must now still attend his motions, and shall do it, in confidence, that what hath been here, in answer to his Preface, said so largely, will not be exacted of me again at every turn, by way of Repetition. On which ground it is evident, that I am to make no return to the remainder, which is the recapitulating of this Preface.    

CHAP. III. Of Superstition peculiarly. And first of his Prolegomenon on that Subject.  

Sect. 1. Answer to §. 1. The method used to find the meaning of the word.  
IN his first Diatribe, that of Superstition, §. 1. I may lightly touch and pass over the dislike of my method in writing of Will-worship before Superstition, together with the reason, that being more general, this a species under it; for though it be certain, that I am not of his mind, that the former is a species of the latter, and so that I cannot admit of his reason of change, or that his is, as he saith, a more just methodical order of tractation, yet I shall not engage in a dispute of their precedence, but only reply to the latter part of his first §. which directs the manner of enquiring, what Superstition is, not by searching into the monuments of heathen Author's Latin or Greek from the names or senses by them given, as by the judgement of Divines etc.  
In answer to this I shall need no farther reply then to remind him, that as there is no better way to understand the full importance of words, then to examine them in their origination, and their usage among the best Authors, Masters of words, not only profane but sacred, so sure this is the very method I have taken, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and Superstition) viewing it in the ancient heathens, in the parts first, then in the composition, and so also in the sacred Scripture (which I hope is no heathen Author) as oft as it is found there, in Lactantius and St. Augustine, which sure knew what true Religion meant, whatsoever he is pleased to suggest of my way and Authors, and are as competent judges of Superstition, as his later Divines, that have reduced the use of all ceremonies, not commanded by God, to the 2d Commandment (and to Deut. 4. 2.) under the title of Superstition.   

Sect. 2. Answer to §. 2. Amesius' definition. The matter of the 4. first Commandments. The Affirmative part of the 2d Commandment. The Diatribist's misadventure about Duty in the midst. No prohibition of either holy days in the 4th Commandment. Jeroboams act, 1 Kin. 12. 32. The Rubenites altar, Josh. 22. Naaman's altar. Christmas Festival parallel to it. The excesses in each Commandment.  
IN the 2d §. where he shows out of Dr. Ames: how Superstition may be fitly defined by Aquinas, a vice contrary to Religion in the excess, viz. 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] he knows this, in the obvious sense of the words, such as from Aquinas was lately cited, is perfectly agreeable to my affirmations who make the worship of all but God, and the worship of God in any forbidden or abolished manner, to be species of Superstition. But if by the aequivocal phrase [not in the manner which he ought] he mean [in whatsoever other manner, or rite, or circumstance which God hath not expressly prescribed, any appendent of worship instituted or appointed by man] (and not only any worship, as he citys out of Amesius, p. 4.) there is no truth in his definition, nor agreeableness to Aquinas' sense, as hath appeared formerly: 'tis sure, Aquinas, which is cited in the margin, hath not owned any such interpretation of [non prout debet] to belong to all uncommanded rites. If Amesius have (which I have not commodity to examine) than he was one of the Casuists which I forementioned, as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribist, and if Vrsine, Dr. Fulke, Mr. Perkins are rightly cited in his margin, and their words extended no farther than they designed them, than perhaps we have the full catalogue of them, and the Diatribist is now of age, to consider whether they have proved, or only dictated in this matter.  
As for the grounds which are here laid by the Diatribist toward the evincing of it, they are no way qualified for such a structure. For when to the 4. Commandments of the first Table, he assigns these 4. things as the subject matter of them, a right object of worship, God alone, of the first; a right matter, commanded worship, of the second; a right manner, with all reverence, of the third; a right time, his own appointed day, of the fourth; and thence concludes all excess in any of these Superstition, there is scarce any one minute part of sound doctrine in all this.  
For in the first, which hath most of truth, yet this failing there is, that the right object of worship is not the principal matter of that Commandment, but the worship itself, all the parts of that, having him for our God, treating him, addressing to him, as such, and of this there is no criminous excess, which can be styled Superstition, the Superstition forbidden in that commandment, is not any extreme or excess of worshipping the true God, but the taking in other rivals to that worship, which belongs to the true God incommunicably, and so is the matter of the negative part of that precept, not the nimiety of the affirmative.  
In the second, there is not a word to determine the matter of it to commanded worship, as hath been evidenced beyond all question. The Subject of the 2d Commandment is the prohibition of Idol-worship; And bending the knee to the true God and none else, observing of Christmas etc. are remote enough from that guilt.  
As for the 3d I had thought our Saviour Mat. 6. had given us the sum of it, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but perform unto the Lord thy oaths, the negative and affirmative parts of it, and then with what propriety can that be said to denote the right manner of the worship, with all due reverence? Or if it should be extensible so far, then sure all ceremonies that may express that reverence, though not elsewhere prescribed, will be here commanded, and then sure not forbidden in the 2d Commandment.  
Lastly, for the right time, God's own appointed day (the Sabbath, I suppose, he means) though that be appointed in the 4th Commandment, yet sure not so as to prohibit all others, we know there was a yearly Sabbatick fast (the great day of expiation) so called Isa. 58. 13. and many other feasts beside that of the weekly rest in the 4th Commandment, some of Gods own institution, others, as the feast of dedication of the Altar, in memory of the purging by Judas Maccabaeus, instituted by the Jews themselves, and never mentioned in the Canon of the old Testament; and so the fasts of the fifth and seventh month, Zac. 7. 5. And under the new Testament, the first day of the week, that certainly was not the last, which the Decalogue prescribed, and why the Apostles, that instituted that, proportionably to the weekly Sabbath, should not (either they, or their successors) institute other days, festival or fasting, proportionable to the like among the Jews, sure there is no manner of prohibition in the 4th Commandment, which commanding one day to be hallowed, and allowing the rest for their ordinary labour, doth not yet interdict all others, or bind his own, or his peoples, and all Christians hands from prescribing or setting a part any other.  
And there being so little solidity in the grounds, how can it be expected, there should be any in the conclusion, as he saith, answerably erected on them, that Superstition may extend to the whole first Table, or that every excess which he will fancy reducible to any of these, shall straightway commence Superstition?  
That he may farther persuade this, one observation he commends to us fundamental to this discovery, but such as I think never slipped from any man before him. His words are these, The Commandments of God, having every of them a negative and affirmative part (expressed or understood) the duties of Religion do stand in the midst, as virtues between two extremes. Here I shall not question the corner stone of this foundation, else I might demand, what is the affirmative part of the 2d Commandment, or how can it be evidenced that there is any, or indeed any more than a prohibition of idol-worship appendent to the no other Gods in the first Commandment, which still is but a negative, or an interdict, or if an affirmative be to be understood, must it not be bowing down to the true God, and so that will not prejudge, but justify all outward decent gestures of adoration, assist, not oppugn our pretensions?  
But in stead of this nicer inquiry, and supposing with him that every of the Commandments, hath its negative and affirmative part, I only demand how he could think that the duties of Religion stand in the midst? what I pray is the antecedent to which [in the midst] relates? there is no other in the period, but [an affirmative and negative part of each Commandment] But do the duties of Religion stand in the midst of the affirmative and the negative part of each Commandment, as virtues between two extremes? Then sure the affirmative part of the command is one extreme, and the negative is the other, than what is commanded in the affirmative part, to that which is under precept, is an extreme, and so a vice, as far removed from virtue, as that which is forbidden in the negative, the worship of one God, a vice, as well as the worshipping of many; paying to God our oaths, a vice, as well as perjury; perfect chastity, a vice, as well as the most prostitute adultery, and so in the rest of them: what could have been said more unluckily than this?  
I would fain believe that the Diatribist did not mean thus, and therefore would attempt to affix some other possible meaning to his words, as thus (without any retrospect toward the former part of the period) that the duties of Religion stand in the midst between two extremes, as virtues stand in the midst between two extremes. But then to what purpose was the meant on of the two parts, affirmative and negative, of the Commandments, premised? for this I am still to seek, and therefore must misdoubt my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it is not so fit for the malady as I could have wished, and yet I have no better to succeed it.  
The best of it is, he hath not pursued this observation, nor made this Superstructure in his exemplification thereof; the grosseness of it would not permit that. But then to what purpose was his observation? sure but to amuse the reader and say somewhat demurely, which should pretend to be a ground of his beloved conclusions, that all additions to the rule of worship are excess against the 2d Commandment, additions of ridiculous ceremonies or gestures an excess against the 3d, men's instituting other holy days and times, an excess against the 4th. And truly what else he please, with as much appearance of truth, or solidity of argument, as these are inferred from either the letter of those Commandments, or from the solemn observation concerning the affirmative, and negative parts of them, and the duties of Religion in the midst.  
'tis true, all worshipping of Idols is forbidden in the 2d Commandment, but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols? All perjury (and (by Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) voluntary swearing at all) is forbidden in the 3d Commandment; but how come rites and ceremonies and gestures, though never so ridiculous, to be either oaths or perjuries, or to bear any analogy with, or by that means to be reducible to them? In the 4th Commandment the not observing Gods designed Sabbath, was a defect; but what words of that Commandment conclude against instituting other holy days and times, as an excess, and that criminous, not admittable among Christians.  
If any, it must be [six days shalt thou labour] but sure that is not the meaning of them, but the explication is to be fetched from the other part of the period [and do all that thou hast to do] i. e. all thy labour, and all that thou hast to do, shall be finished, as God's was, in six days, and no other day must be so set apart, as to take off from the seventh day's rest or Sabbath: but for such celebrations as are reconcileable with that, there is no word nor appearance to the prejudging of them.  
But the unlawfulness of this last is confirmed by the sinfulness of Jeroboams act, 1 Kin. 12. 32. He ordained a feast like unto the feast that was in Judaea. But the Diatribist cannot but know what it was that made that criminous in Jeroboam, his appointing this feast to be kept with sacrifices at Bethel, which, beside the sacrificing to calves which he had set up, was also quite contrary to the express word of God, which had commanded that all sacrifice should be offered, and consequently feasts kept at Jerusalem, and no where else, see Deut. 12. 5, 6. 11. 13, 14. 26, 27. and Josh. 22. 16. 19 29. and Joh. 4. 20. This sure was the sin of Jeroboam, to set up calves in Dan and Bethel, to keep the people from going up to Jerusalem, 1 Kin. 12. 28. 30. to make a house of high places, and Priests which which were not of the sons of Levi, v. 31. and so in like manner a feast like unto the feast which is in Judah; and upon that feast day to offer sacrifice upon that Altar, which he had made in Bethel, v. 33. All contrary to that command of making Jerusalem the only place of sacrifice and public solemn worship to all Israel.  
Nay had that ordaining of a feast by Jeroboam been separated from that appendent sin, of sacrificing elsewhere then God had commanded, and drawing away the people from the worship of Jerusalem, which was so strictly under precept, I shall desire to know, why that might not have been as blameless as the Rubenites erecting an Altar by Jordan, Jos. 22. which though it were looked on by their other brethren as an horrible thing, whilst it appeared to be a violation of that Law, v. 12. and 16, 17. yet when it was truly represented to them by Remonstrance, that this Altar was not built to divert them from Jerusalem, or to offer sacrifice on, v. 23. but only for a memorial to their children, that they belonged to the Lord God of Israel, v. 24. 27, 28. and a means to keep up Religion in their children's hearts, v. 25, 26. then it was justified in the sight of all Israel, the thing pleased the people, and they blessed God etc. v. 33.  
And why may not a Christian festival, instituted in like manner as a memorial, not to draw off any man's heart from any part of God's prescribed worship, be as innocent as this? And so our jealous brethren, the Diatribist and those of his persuasion, that came out to dispute against us, imitate them, and lay down that design, and go back to their houses in peace?  
To which purpose one thing more may yet fitly be added, that Jerusalem being the place of worship, prescribed by express precept to all the Jews, but not so to all other pious people of the world, though even to them also, to all people, it was a house of prayer, if they would make use of it (and accordingly we read of heathens that came to Jerusalem to worship) yet this precept, which, as such, lay on the Jews, being not obligatory to the Gentile proselytes, we know, Naaman built him an Altar in his own country, and there offered unto the God of heaven, and was so far approved in this, that the Prophet himself allows him the mules loads of earth to be carried out of Judaea to the erecting of it, And I am persuaded the analogy will hold exactly, as to the matter in hand, to a Christian festival instituted by the Church of Christ which was never bound up to any prescript number of days for the worship of Christ, whatsoever can be deemed of the Jews, who, though required to do all according to the pattern in the Mount, had yet the liberty of instituting a day for God's service, as is evident by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And so whatsoever the Diatribist can fancy in the conclusion of his 2d §. of the possibility [that there may be Superstition in or against all the Commandments of the first Table in the excessive part, and that it were easy to observe, that many (Divines especially) do call the excesses of any Commandment by the name of Superstition] yet I hope the observing of a few blameless, decent, useful ceremonies, instituting a Christian festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ (descensum venerabilis Dei ad humanae conservationis rerum mortalium gratiam, the descent of a venerable God for the saving of mankind, could a 
Chalcidius in Plat. Tim. p 219.  Philosopher say upon the observation of the star at his birth) will not actually prove to be any of those excesses. And then I shall not need inquire what those Reverend Divines are, who have been so liberal of the odious title of Superstition, as to impose it (very discreetly and charitably) upon the excesses of any Commandment.  
By the way, I am not sure that in every Commandment of the Ten, there are such excesses, I shall suppose chastity the duty of the 7th Commandment, and allowing fornication, adultery and sodomy to make up the extreme on one side, either in the excess, or in the defect, shall give the Diatribist leave to choose which it shall be, and supposing it must be the defect, (the want not the abundance of chastity) I shall desire to know what is the excess or other extreme, and whether that be by the forenamed Divines, placed under the head of Superstition, or indeed whether somewhat otherwise criminous; Thus it must be, if the excesses of any Commandment be so to be called, and if in every Commandment, not only in those of the first table which had been dilated on before there be such excesses (and however the analogy holds for these of the 2d table as well as for them) of these he hath oft told us, that the duty is in the midst of the two extremes, how duly, will be discerned by answer to this question, and others, which will be soon ready, when he pleases to call for them, of the same kind.   

Sect. 3. The species of Superstition, Idolatry belongs to the 2d Commandment. Superstition to the first. It differs from Will-worship. The meaning of Illegitimate worship in Aquinas. His opinion of Ecclesiastical rites. Barbarous ceremonies of Baal's worship belong not to the 2d Commandment. Holy days before Popery. Two ancient Testimonies for them. The Jews scrupulosity in not resisting on the Sabbath day.  
IN his 3d §. some few things may be briefly noted. 1. That he wrongs Aquinas in saying he makes but three kinds of Superstition, Idolatry, Illegitimate worship and Divination, whereas it is most evident to any that will turn to the place in Aquinas, 2 ¹ 2 ² qu: 92. art: 1. and art: 2. in corp: that he adds a fourth, Superstitio quarundam observationum, citing out of St Augustine the Ligatures and such like; And I cannot guess to what purpose this was misreported thus.  
Secondly, where he saith of Divines that they refer Idolatry to the first Commandment, the Divines he means must needs be those that put the first and second commandment into one (such I suppose was Aquinas, and I had well hoped the Diatribist had not been of that persuasion) for else these words [Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, etc.] being supposed to make a distinct and 2d Commandment, no Divine can be so irrational, as to deny Idolatry properly so called to belong to, and to be prohibited in that. And if it were true, what the Diatribist adds, that Divination is the worst kind of Idolatry, sure that must be forbidden under the 2d Commandment also; But in this I suppose Aquinas was in the right, that made it a species of Superstition, not of Idolatry, and so it must more fitly belong to the first Commandment, and so must Illegitimate worship, being an offence against the due manner of God's worship. But these are niceties that we are but little concerned in.  
Thirdly, this quarrel to his own Dr. Amesius for restraining Superstition to one Commandment, which he will have lie common to all the four, is certainly causeless; For the worship of many Gods (together with Divination etc.) and the undue worship of the true God, do certainly belong to one Commandment, viz. the first, which by commanding to have no other Gods but that one true God, excludes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or daemon worship, and by commanding the worship of that one, forbids all undue manners of worship. That he understood by the word Superstition no more but the tendering undue worship to God, was indeed an error in Amesius, sufficiently prevented, and disproved, by Aquinas, and by the nature of the Greek and Latin words, and so likewise that he confined it to the 2d Commandment, when in all reason it belonged to the first; But that being acknowledged his error, this other of not extending it to many Commandments is no way imputable to him.  
Fourthly, when of that species of Superstition, which he defines by the vice of undue worship tendered to God, he affirms that it is more properly Will-worship, this is but an unproved and improbable affirmation, quite contrary to Aquinas and his own Authors (as far as I can discern) Amesius himself, and a confounding of things very distant.  
Fiftly, when of Aquinas' illegitimate worship he gives his own gloss, that he means that which is not commanded by God, but instituted and appointed by men] this is great injury to that School-man; What he means by that phrase will be best learned from 
2● 2 qu. 93.  Aquinas himself, who sets it down distinctly by distributing it into two parts; For thus that 93d question De illegitimo Dei cultu, Of the illegitimate worship of God, begins, Et superfluitate & pravitate vitiatur divinus cultus etc. The worship of God is vitiated both by superfluity, and by pravity; by superfluity, if to the worshipping of God ought be assumed, which neither by Divine nor Ecclesiastical appointment belongs to the glory of God nor to the subjecting either of the body or soul to the Creator; by pravity, if the external ceremony contain any thing of falsity in it, which may fall out, saith he, two ways, either by the disagreement between the ceremony and the thing denoted by it, or by the public ministers using any ceremony contrary to the custom of the Church. Thus far are the words of Aquinas: and what could have been more destructive to the Diatribists pretensions then this description and branching of illegitimate worship, if either here or before, when Aquinas was cited, this sense of his, thus expressed, had been considered?  
That he may never cite Aquinas again in this matter, I shall desire him to remember from that School-man these 4. things, his undoubted affirmations, by way of Axioma, 1. That illegitimate, is vitiated worship, and so more than uncommanded, certainly that which is prohibited, (and this according to the propriety of the word illegitimum, which signifies not without, but against Law. Legitimum, saith 
In Tim: p. 243.  Chalcidius, est id quod legem sequitur, legitime is that which follows the Law, or as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Plutarch defines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the command of Law or that which is determined or commanded by Law, adding, that those good things which yet are not under precept, are not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legitime; And so in Leo serm: 1. the jejun: 7. men's: legitima are opposed to voluntaria, as commanded to spontaneous. Now what is Law, saith 
p. 248.  Chalcidius, nisi jussum sciscens honesta, prohibens contraria, but a command requiring honest things, and prohibiting the contrary? And consequently illegitimum being the direct contrary to legitimum, will signify, in the contrary sense to that which is commanded, that which is prohibited by Law.) 2dly. That the superfluity of it consists not in being superadded to God's commands only, but to the Church's appointment, and so that which is ordained by the Church, though not by God, comes not under that style of superfluous or illegitimate upon that score. 3dly. That what tends to the glory of God, or to the subjecting of the body as well as the soul to the Creator of both, is neither superfluous nor illegitimate, so it be ordained by the Church. Lastly, that the Ministers public using any ceremony contrary to the custom of the Church (such is his sitting at the Sacrament, and the like) is a pravity, and that is worse than a superfluity in the worship of God. I suppose this may now be sufficient to arm the Reader against the fallacies, to which the frequent citations out of Aquinas might subject him.  
Sixtly, That it is not to me imaginable how or why the barbarous ceremonies of Baal's Priests, etc. should be an excess against the 3d Commandment, or a taking God's name in vain, which we know is by Christ rendered for swearing one's self, and when they that cried nothing but O Baal hear us, from morning till night, never used the name of God at all (for sure Baal and God are not Synonyma's) and so cannot be affirmed in vain to use it or take it.  
Seventhly, That dedicating holy days to Saints (though Christ, whose Festival we treat of, be more than such) is neither fitly paralleled by the Diatribist with Jeroboam's feast day at Bethel (as we competently evinced in the last Sect.) nor appropriated by him to Papists, when we know such days were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs, long before the name or errors of Papists were come into the world.  
A competent evidence we have 
Festiv: p. 438.  formerly given from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, written on occasion of the Martyrdom of Polycarpe, St. John's Auditor, where having described the passages of his suffering, they conclude with their wish and hope, that God will now permit them to meet together with exultation and joy, to celebrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Smyrn. Eccles. Epist. p. 28.  though birthday or natalitia (so was styled) of his Martyrdom, adding the two great ends of such observations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the commemorating of such Champion's constancy, and the exercise, and fitting of others for the future. The circumstances of that Epistle make it clear, that such celebrations and dedications of days were then of use before Polycarp's death, and that they now expected that this of his should be added to that number, and that so it was, I shall now add a 2d undoubted proof or testimony of Primitive Antiquity, ancienter than that of Polycarp, in the Martyrdom of Ignatius, written by them which were present at it, who setting down the day and time of his Coronation, say, they do it so precisely, 
Martyrium Ignat. p. 8.  ut secundum tempus Martyrii coagregati communicemus athletae, that assembling together on the anniversary of his Martyrdom, they may communicate with his Martyrdom, commemorate his sufferings and bless God for him, etc.  
These authorities may, I hope, be of some credit with him, who can found arguments on passages in Aquinas and Amesius, and if Apostles, as equitably as Martyrs, may thus be commemorated, the Church of England I hope (whatever become of the Papists) may be vindicated from all Superstition, or excess against the 4th Commandment.  
And then when I have added 8tly, that the Jews scrupulosity in observing their Sabbath, so that they would not stand up to defend themselves in that day, is none of the excesses we are guilty of, and that this being by the Diatribist styled excess of Religion, and that against the 4th Commandment, and justly called Superstition, there is no need of making any more species of that excess, or forcing in all dedication of holy days, into that place I shall not need look any more narrowly to spy out greater store of infirmities in that 3d Sect.   

Sect. 4. The Diatribist's method and caution in setting down the species of Superstition.  
BUT because all the former methods were imperfect and unsufficient (even before they were confuted) to erect such a modelled notion of Superstition as would serve the Diatribists aims, he must now in his 4th Sect. become humble, in stead of Magisterial, implore the courteous Readers pardon, if he be not so logically accurate, to set down (what he is resolved is not easy to discover) all the kinds and ways whereby this sin of Superstition is committed in particular.  
And to what purpose all this modesty is designed, will be easily guest, viz. to leave the word Superstition in the clouds, to involve, in stead of explaining it, that it may continue useful to him, as a mormo, whensoever he hath a mind to affright men out of their obedience to the Church, to which purpose it could not be so commodious, if it were once defined or limited to one or any set number of more Commandments. And though in the 10. following Sections he reckon up pretty store of species of it, yet he must here beforehand make sure of a reserve, protest his liberty to add more, whensoever he shall have need of them [we shall, saith he, labour to express some of them, as we find them held out by Divines and others] where it seems Divines, such as Amesius, Vrsine, Mr. Perkins etc. have not held out enough, but he must have a supply from others, which are not Divines, (and it would be an odd question to be answered, who those others are, when the monuments of heathen authors, Latin and Greck have been so severely disclaimed in his §. 1. and then none but the judgement of Divines thought sit to be appealed to in this matter) and §. 14. when he hath completed a large catalogue, he concludes with [Lastly to add no more] intimating that there are still more to be added; of which he will serve himself, when he sees good.  
What now follows in the 10. ensuing Sections, I shall resolvedly pass over, though there be many things very fit to be noted in them, partly because he promiseth they shall soon recurre again, and partly because they belong to the other tracts, that of Will-worship and Festivals, where sure we shall meet with them, and partly because they have been spoken to already, and besides, some of them are the enumerating of those very species of Superstition which I have set down in that treatise, as such. And therefore so much (after his Preface) for his Prolegomena.    

CHAP. IU. Of the Particular exceptions of the Diatribist to the Tract of Superstition.  

Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt.  
IAm now more immediately summoned and called into the lists by this Diatribist §. 15. and the several Sections of the Treatise of Superstition must be brought to a strict examination, and I hope they will not be unable to bear it.  
In my first §. there is nothing disliked, but only that I will not acknowledge myself or our Church guilty, before the trial, and to that purpose I am told [commonly those that are most Superstitious are most confident of their innocency and piety, and no marvel if they understand Superstition as the Dr. doth.]  
But to this I answer, that I hope this his prudent Aphorism is not simply convertible, viz. That they which are most confident of their innocency and piety, are most Superstitious (for if it be, I must not be so unkind to wish, or so uncharitable to believe of the Diatribist, that he hath a good conscience, nor any longer rely on that Apostle that hath taught me God's method of judging of us, by the verdict of our own accusing or excusing conscience) and so long 'tis possible that I may be free from that guilt, though I am never so confident. Mean while I that allow the Diatribist one species, that of Negative Superstition for his portion, have his leave to conclude from hence, that this is the reason why he is so confident of his innocence.  
As for the 2d part, my understanding of the notion of the word Superstition in that Treatise, if I cannot justify it to be as good as Mr. C. his superstatutum, I shall very much accuse myself, and in the interim be comforted with his confession, that if I have not erred in the notion of Superstition, of which he is no competent judge, being a party, then both I and our Church (for the Romish I shall not be so solicitous) are far enough from this crime.   

Sect. 2. The nature of the word. Excess of fear among the Epicureans, Superstitio from Super and sto, not statuo. Aquinas misreported.  
THe next or 16th §. considers the notion by me given of the Latin Superstitio, Superstitum cultus, and having yielded it to be so defined by the heathens, yet he cannot think that I will say, that that this is the only Superstition to be found in the world, because I acknowledge an excessive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of it among the Heathens, and other kinds also among Christians, adding that some there are, and they no mean ones, that derive it from Super and sto or statuo, as supra statutum, worship instituted by men above the statute Law of God, but he rather rests in the definition of the Schools, that it is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess which may extend to the other commandments, whereas this limits it to the 2d.  
To all this I need no farther to reply, but 1. That my 2d Sect. was not designed to give any complete definition of Superstition, but to search how much was to be concluded from the Latin word, as in the following Sections how much more from the Greek, and then to make use of all other proper means, the use of the word in Scripture and Fathers, to collect the full importance of it; and consequently, if what I vouched out of the Latin origination be true, there is no more to be expected of my 2d §. 2dly. That I no where grant an excessive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of Superstition, among the heathens, but only that some heathens, especially the Epicureans which denied all providence and judgement to come, and scoffed at all fear of punishment for sin, affixed to this the name as of Superstition, so of Religion also, whereupon I thought it reasonable that we should not (not that we should) take our notion of Superstition from them, which yet it seems the Diatribist is content to do, and so with the famishing prodigal to herd himself among the Epicureans.  
Having thus secured myself (as far as pertains to this §.) I may now be allowed to consider the Diatribist, and then I find in these few words a competent number of infirmities. 1. That mentioning their Etymology of Superstition, who will have it super statutum, he makes them derive it indifferently from (super and) sto or statuo, as if those two were Synonyma, whereas certainly [to stand] is competently distant from [to make laws or statutes] and if it be derived from the one, it is not from the other.  
2dly. That deriving it from sto, he doth not discern that this is my way of derivation, for sure superstes is from super and sto, and so he confirms my origination of the word, whilst he thinks he confuteth it, absolves very frankly, whom he sat down on purpose to condemn.  
3dly. That his forsaking the etymon from super statutum to which so oft he had expressed kindness, was again on an undirect aim, that he might get more advantage to his hypothesis by that means, not moved with the absurdity of the derivation, but merely that he might have more liberty to range in, by serving himself on a notion of Superstition qualified to extend it to all the Commandments of the first table, which how those (no mean ones) whom for his own ends he hath now deserted, will take at his hands, I leave him to consider.  
4thly. That having rejected the derivation from supper and sto, or statuo, he hath substituted no other, and so left a rivulet without a spring, a compound derivative without an original, a monster in art, as well as nature.  
5tly. That making use of the Schooleman's definition, he extends it much farther than he knows that Schooleman extended it, This he formerly confessed §. 3. naming this Learned Schooleman as the first, who came short in assigning the species of Superstition, and here he more than confesseth it, extending Superstition to all the four Commandments of the first table, when he knows Aquinas made it a breach peculiar to the first of them.   

Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the heathens for Religion, so in Hesychyus and Phavorinus.  
THe question of the 17th, Sect. concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what kind of fear or dread of a Deity was among the heathens noted by it, I have answered already, even that which the Epicureans would have driven out of the world, as making the Gods cruel, tyrannical etc. and accordingly in Cicero, Superstitione liberare, to free men from Superstition, and in Lucretius, Religionibus, from all Religion and obligation of duty, is explained by metum omnem Deorum pulsum esse, to have all fear of the Gods banished from us.  
If there be any other minute difference observable, it is this, that it is such a fear of the Deity as wicked men are in reason to have, (and that sure, though a great trembling, was yet no excess, no more than was very equitably the portion of such) so saith 
l. 2. p. 779.  Diodorus Siculus of Bomilcar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they that are about to undertake any notable wicked actions, are generally afraid of the Gods or Daemons, and so still that will yield our Diatribist no aid toward the support of any of his hypotheses, sure the instituting of our Christmas Festival, was no act of such a just dread of vengeance for sin, nor effect whether immediately or remotely produced by it.  
As for his affirmation that the former part of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify worship, but fear, and not that fear which is oft put for the whole worship of God, but slavish fear etc. this is a clear mistake; 'tis true indeed it doth signify sometimes a trembling fear (such as I said was the wicked man's portion and due lot, and so not an excess, or unproportionable to his state) as when Plutarch saith of him, he wisheth there were no Gods, but it doth not always signify thus, but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fear of Gods and daemons, and accordingly as Phavorinus in the Epicurean notion of it renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a cowardly fear toward God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or an irrational fear of the Gods, so Hesychius renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fearing God, or Religion in universum, and the same Phavorinus explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitious, by devout or pious, and adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Paul useth the word Act. 17. 22.   

Sect. 4. False worship is not Will-worship. Imposition of hands.  
HIS 18th §. being but an approbation of my conclusion, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the Poetical Gods, Angels, or dead men, or indeed any thing but the only true God, must not be resisted by me; I am glad I have once gratified him.  
But when he adds, that this clears what he had said, that this is rather idolatry against the first Commandment, which is Polytheisme, than any kind of Superstition, which is the giving of false, i. e. uncommanded worship to the true God against the 2d Commandment, this is but a heap of incongruities; for 1. Idolatry, as hath been evidenced, is a sin against the 2d Commandment, though Polytheisme be against the first.  
2dly. Though Superstition be the giving of false worship to the true God, as well as worship to false Gods, Daemons and Superstites, the souls of men departed (or a dread, which is not a worship, to the true) yet this false worship is unfitly explicated by uncommanded worship, For certainly all such is not false, as out of Aquinas was cleared, especially if the word Worship be extended, as this Diatribist extends it, to rites and observances, as well as to the substantial parts of worship; such were imposition of hands in benediction among the Jews, continued also for many uses among Christians, yet never prescribed or commanded by God; and many the like elsewhere mentioned.  
And this therefore 3dly. cannot be truly affirmed to be against the 2d Commandment, which also being spent upon the worship of Idols (all for the interdicting of that) cannot be properly said to consider the worship of the true God, (unless it be the external part, that of bowing down &c. in the affirmative branch of it) which had been the subject of the first Commandment; and to that in all reason all false worship of the true God must be reduced, and not to the second.   

Sect. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. (The Athenians the most devout of all the Greeks.)  
WHat he saith by way of dilemma §. 19 concerning the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more Superstitious, of the Athenians, Act. 17. 22. [If saith he, they were so called because they worshipped more Gods, than they were Polytheists, If because they were devout or pious, rather impious in worshipping the true God ignorantly in a false manner, than their sin was against the 2d Commandment] though true, in some sense, is yet nothing gainful to his design, which can thrive by no other means but by getting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Superstition to denote all uncommanded rites in the worship of the true God.  
This it no way signifies in that place of the Acts but only their worshipping a multitude of Gods, moe than any other nation did, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unknown God, for one, and so their being more pious in their course, than other their heathen country men were, or indeed then the Romans, or any else.  
That this is the truth, and the whole truth, hath sufficiently been evidenced in the Tr: of Superstition, §. 11. and I now add three testimonies more, to that heap, one out of Josephus, l. 2. Contra Ap: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All men affirm the Athenians to be the most pious of the Greeks. A 2d out of Sophocles, Oedip:  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
If any know how to worship the Gods with honours (sacrifices and offerings to their Temples) Athens excels them all; The third even now intimated out of Phavorinus, but here more fully to be expressed, who having explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superstitious by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pious, subjoins this testimony of the Acts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Paul saith, I see that you are more Superstitious, the very place which we have now before us, brought by that learned Grammarian as an instance, that the word is there taken in a good, not ill sense, yet not of any uncommanded worship of the true God, but a pious, though Ethnic devotion toward the multitude of their false, superadded to the one true God, which though in a Christian scale or judgement it cannot be approved, because it is Polytheisme, yet in comparison with other heathens (which was S. Paul's business in that place) it was truly by him looked on as a greater measure of devotion, than the rest of the heathen world were guilty of, and that is all that was meant by that phrase, and so 'tis not at all useful to the end, to which the Diatribist would have inclined it.   

Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25. Festus' scorn falls on the Jews, not on Paul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own, not theirs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accusation. Jesus put under the notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Festus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a daemon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Diatribists objections answered. Superstition for Religion simply.  
HIS 20th §. is an arraignment of §. 12. of Superst. concerning the place Act. 25. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. which I had rendered, questions or accusations concerning his own Religion or Superstition or Worship, and (to explain what was meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of one Jesus that was dead, whom Paul said to be alive, putting him under the notion of a dead Heros, and so meaning the worship of him by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Against this the Diatribist excepts in 3. particulars. 1. It is like, saith he, Festus spoke in scorn, not of Paul's only, but of the whole Jewish Religion, as, saith he, the words may import, and are translated by ours. 2. That what I said of putting Jesus under the notion of a dead Heros or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a strain of Criticism, compounding things which are in the Text distinct, for Festus says (saith he) they had many questions both concerning their own Superstition, and also concerning one Jesus, etc. adding (to confirm this) that he was accused of questions of their Law, c. 23. 29. and of sedition, seducement, profanation of the Temple, 24. 5, 6. 3dly. That Paul affirmed Jesus to be alive, not in part, as the Daemons were supposed, but in the whole man, as raised from the dead.  
To these I briefly answer, and first to the first; For the scorn, it no way appears to be meant by Festus against S. Paul or his Religion, for Festus is at this time speaking in favour of Paul, and slighteth the Jews accusations of him, as matters of no considerable moment, and so, if there be any thing of sarcasme in the speech, it falls on the Jews, not on him, and so cannot set any ill character on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in case that be S. Paul's, and not theirs.  
As for the Diatribist's fancy, that the scorn should fall not on Paul's only, but on the whole Jewish Religion, that cannot hold, for when he speaks of the Jews charge against Paul, he cannot speak of that wherein Paul and they agreed, but wherein they differed, and that must either be their way, which Paul opposed, or Paul's way, which they now accused him of.  
Now which of these two it was, is not determinable by the words in Greek, for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may either be rendered his own or their own; Yet that it must be interpreted his, I offer this reason to persuade, (whereas the Diatribist pretends to none for the contrary, but only that so the words may import, and that our English hath so translated) The Jews accusation or charge against S. Paul is plainly mentioned in this place; That is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they had questions or laid charges against him; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies a charge, complaint, indictment, so c. 18. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but if the accusation or charge be of a word; Thus Satan, who is so called, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an adversary in foro, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accuser, is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seek. 1 Pet. 5. 8. (and Luk. 22. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to require) i. e. to accuse and charge men, that so they may be delivered up to him as an executioner, to winnow, in one place, and to devour, in the other. So to question a man among us vulgarly signifies to accuse him, and that so it, signifies here, appears by v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the accusers brought no accusation of the things which I supposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but some questions, that must be accusations again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. etc.  
Whence, I suppose, it will follow, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he was charged, which is the matter of the accusation, or that wherein the offence consisted, was his, not their Superstition, for how could their own Superstition be the matter of their charge against him?  
To the 2d, that what I said of Festus putting Jesus under the notion of a dead Heros, though it be of that nature that I shall not, because I need not, make it a matter of controversy with any, yet I had this consideration to incline me to it, the immediate subjoyning of one Jesus whom Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contended to live, to be superstes, as of their Daemons, Festus and those of his persuasions ordinarily affirmed. To which purpose I remembered what the Athenians surmised, when Paul preached to them Jesus and the Resurrection, Act. 17. 18. He seems, say they, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be a proclaimer of strange or new Daemons, where St chrysostom judges it so manifest that those Grecians thought Jesus to be a Daemon, that he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they took also Anastasis (Resurrection) for some Goddess, as being accustomed to worship females also. And then why Festus, an heathen likewise, and which understood none but heathen Theology, should not thus mean in words of so near an importance that will bear it so fitly, I can yet see no reason to doubt.  
Of this I am sure, that in the one proof offered to the contrary, the Diatribist hath strained more, than I have in my Criticism, for 1. When he thus reads the text, they had many questions, that so he might make it necessary to distinguish the question concerning his Superstition from that of Jesus, he hath inserted the word many, there being neither in the Greek nor in our English any such word, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some or certain accusations. 2dly. When (on the same design) he again reads [both concerning their Superstition, and also] there is no such word, nor any thing, either in the Greek or our English, answerable either to [both] or to [also] but only thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — concerning his own Superstition or daemon worship, and one Jesus, which was, or had been dead, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, whom Paul affirmed to live; and 3dly. When he adds that he was accused of questions of their Law, c. 23. and of sedition etc. c. 24. this proves nothing, which the Diatribist would have, for though the Jews had thus accused him, yet he had answered for himself in the latter part of c. 24. and cleared himself perfectly from those two charges, from the first, v. 12. and from the second, v. 18. and so again, c. 25. 8. and so still it remains that in Festus' judgement (to which Paul appeals for the knowledge of it, telling him that he knew he was guiltless from having done any wrong to the Jews, v. 10.) Paul was not guilty, nor stood charged of any thing, but only of his own Religion, and one Jesus, i. e. I suppose by way of explication (as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and] is frequently exegetical) of believing and proclaiming Jesus and the Resurrection, c. 24. 15. which last also being common to him with the Jews, as there he contests, could not by them duly be charged upon him, and so the whole charge, and that which is the characteristic, distinctive note of his Religion, is his contending that Jesus was alive, who had died, which how agreeable it is to Festus' notion of a Daemon, I shall not need farther to declare.  
As to the last, it is evident that he that affirms Jesus to be alive, both soul and body, doth to a heathen ear as much define him to be a Daemon, as if he said nothing of his body: However all that Festus here saith is, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he affirmed him to live now after he had been dead, and if to that we add, that Paul preached his ascension to heaven, what could a heathen, according to his persuasions conclude from thence, but that he had attained his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was all that they required to his being a Daemon. And so much for these objections.  
Meanwhile, if all were granted that is here desired by the Diatribist, that the Superstition spoken of was not S. Paul's, but the Jews, this could no way incommodate me, or hinder my pretensions, in order to the main, for then, say I, it shall signify the Jews Religion simply, without any character of ill or good laid on it, as in 
l. 3. c. 8.  Quintilian, Primus Judaicae Superstitionis author, the first author of the Jewish Superstition or Religion, and in 
Leg. Qui ad Temp. D. Decurion.  Ulpian that Severus and Antoninus permitted those to be capable of dignities, qui Judaicam Superstitionem sequuntur, who follow the Jewish Superstition or Religion, and many the like.   

Sect. 7. The method of search for the original notion of the word. Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens. Among them Superstition all one with Religion. Plutarch of the Sabbatick rest. Sacrificing children to Moloch, was not to the true God, Jer. 32. 35. Leu. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worship. The glosses of the Etymologist and Phavorinus.  
THe 21th. §. is a short dispatch of all that I had said of the use of the word among other Authors from §. 14 to §. 27. All which Sections, though entirely designed to the discovering the true notion of the word, by that norma loquendi, the best rule to judge of words, the use of it among writers of all sorts, are shortly censured as [a great deal of reading and learning to little purpose, except to cloud the business, to lead men away in a mist from the true and proper sense of the word among Christians.]  
It seems they which receive benefit by being in the dark, are apt to mistake light for mists, and the Apostle hath given the reason, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are reproved by the light. 'tis certain the Christians took the word whether Greek or Latin, from the heathens, which were before them, and accordingly to judge of the propriety of the use of it, I thought myself obliged to search to the original, i. e. to the use of it among the heathens, and finding the Scripture use of it exactly agreeable to their acception of it, from whom the Scripture had it, and so likewise the Christian Glossaries, that of Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus, the Etymologist and others, I thought this had been to some other purpose then only to cloud the business, And because I continue still in the same opinion, I refer the judicious Reader for three eminent testimonies more to the same purpose (out of Diod. Siculus of Imilco, out of Heraclitns, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of an edict of Tiberius set down by Josephus) to the Annotations on Act. 17. By which, and those already produced in the Sections, here thought fit to be despised by the Diatribist, it is most evident that Religion and Superstition were by them who were guilty of daemon worship, or when used of them by others, taken, as exactly Synonyma, words importing the same thing.  
But against this the Diatribist conceives himself out of these very Sections to have gained somewhat to object, It seems, saith he, the heathens did oft take the word in an ill sense, and branded Religions which they did not like by that name. Plutarch taxes the Jews for their Superstition in two things remarkable. 1. That when invaded, they would not rise from their seats on the Sabbath day, which was excess against the 4th. Commandment, and gross Superstition. 2. Their kill and sacrificing their children to Moloch, which being an horrid Superstition, was (as the former) intended as a worship to the true God, and yet was interpreted no better than sacrificing to devils, Psal. 106. 37. 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 2d Commandment; concluding in a word, that the Etymologist speaks fully his sense, the word among the heathen is taken for a good thing, but among Christians for impiety.  
How solid this way of objecting is, will now soon be discerned, 1. By remembering in the general, that at the beginning of the §. the testimonies brought by me in those Sections, were judged to be to little purpose but to cloud the business and lead men away in a mist, and yet now he can express kindness to some of the testimonies, as thinking they may be useful to his pretensions, which assures me all the other might have been capable of the like favour and friendly reception from him, if they could any way have been persuaded to do him service.  
2dly. To the heathens taking the word in an ill sense, the answer is most obvious, so they did Religion too, and indifferently either, when either they that spoke were Epicureans, enemies to all Religion, or when the Religions they spoke of were disliked by them, and so sure that proves nothing for the Diatribist.  
3dly. This is the answer also to what is observed from Plutarch, for he speaks of the religions which he disliked, the Jewish was one of them, and particularly their observation of Sabbatick rests to the ruining their City, which he thought their Religion had bound them to, and never dreamt that they had mistaken their Religion, or that their 4th Commandment allowed them greater liberty.  
4thly. That Plutarch mentions the kill and sacrificing of children, he took that also for a part of some men's Religion, and thought he had reason to be dissatisfied with it, and to make it an instance of the Quantum Religio potuit, how much evil Religion did in the world, still making no distinction betwixt Religion and Superstition. But here by the way the Diatribist hath a little mistaken, in thinking that this bloody worship in sacrificing their children to Moloch was as the former (i. e. as that of the strict Judaical rest in time of invasion) intended as a worship to the true God.  
Certainly Moloch was no true God, but a false, the abomination of the children of Ammon, 1 Kin. 11. 7. and 2 Kin. 23. 13. thought by learned men to be a deified King of the Egyptians, and so a daemon, placed among the stars, the same that others make the planet Mars (see Kircheri Prodromus Coptic. 1. 5.) and that sacrifice was the giving their seed to Moloch that false God, Leu. 20. 2, 3, 4. or the making their sons and daughters pass through the fire to Moloch, Jer. 32. 45. and so no way intended to the true God.  
And whereas he saith this was interpreted no better than sacrificing to devils, Psal. 106. 37. 'tis strange he should not see or acknowledge that it was a downright sacrificing to Moloch, a Daemon, and not as to the true God, but then he could have had no pretence to make it an act of uncommanded worship, and so such a kind of Superstition as is chargeable on our Christmas Festival; and then he had lost all the advantage which this instance was to bring in to him.  
Toward this he thought to reap some benefit by that text of Scripture, He commanded it not, neither came it into his heart, as he somewhere says] But why did he not tell us where God saith this? If his memory had failed, his Concordance would soon have helped him to set down the place. But it was not for his turn it should be examined. The place is Jer. 32. 35. and again Jer. 7. 31. and truly, belongs to these sacrifices to Moloch, but then God's not commanding etc. signifies not only uncommanded worship, but by the figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinary in the Scripture, worship directly forbidden, under threat of excision, Leu. 20. 2. Whosoever he be that giveth any of his seed to Moloch, he shall surely be put to death, the people of the land shall stone him with stones, and I will set my face against him, and cut him off from among his people. v. 3. And if the people of the land do any way hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed to Moloch, and kill him not, then will I set my face against that man and family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, v. 4. and accordingly we see it in the Execution, Jer. 7. 31, 32. The valley of Tophet where they burned their sons and daughters in the fire, shall be called the valley of slaughter, for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place.  
And sure this was not the manner of proceeding against those that observed any feast or sacrifice to the true God, which was not commanded or prescribed by God, they that kept the Encaenia were not thus judged, and therefore this was very little to the Diatribist's advantage, as now appears by examining the place; it is pity Mr. C. would not consider it.  
Lastly, For the words in the Etymologist, which he saith are fully his sense, 'tis again a mistake, they are directly the contrary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. It must be known that the word Superstition is among the Grecians (or Gentiles) taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a good thing, but among us Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for impiety. i e. evidently the heathens and the Christians use it for the same thing, the worship of daemons, but that the Gentiles commend and account good, who use it, but we christian's justly deem it the greatest impiety.  
Agreeable hereto again is that of Phavorinus a Christian also. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Superstition is the worshipping all things, even those which ' are not to be worshipped, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that is dubious concerning faith (as the Israelites betwixt God and Baal,) or as Tertullian saith, if there were conceived more Gods then one, cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur, he should not know whom to worship, whether one only or both, (adv: Marc, l. 1. c. 5.) or he also that fears (or worships) daemons, as the Assyrians in Samaria that feared the Lord and served their own Gods. And so still this is as contrary to the Diatribists pretensions as might be. And so much for that Section.   

Sect. 8. Superstition always ill, but not always excess. Probations from the use of words among heathens. The Quaere of Divorce vindicated. Superstitions not reproached in the Romans by Polybius. Ignorance not presently Superstition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 17. The Israelites worshipping the Calf. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Superstitiosus noting excess.  
THe 22d. §. makes a leap from the 14th to the 27th over 12. not very brief Sections, I suppose it is because he hath no least objection to make against them (being not else very sparing in this kind) and yet in them is contained my enumeration of all the notions, wherein the word Superstition is or can be taken in the ancient heathens, Scriptures, and Christian glossaries, and the premises on which the subsequent conclusions are founded, and cannot be denied while the premises are granted, and the whole matter made clear, that none of the notions of the word is applicable to the benefit of the Diatribist's pretensions.  
Now in §. 27. it seems some flaws are to be found, as 1. When I say 'tis inconsequent that Superstition simply and absolutely taken should be resolved in all Authors to signify somewhat that is ill, particularly false worship, this, saith he, is not the question, but whether in Scripture and orthodox Divines it do not always signify something evil, particularly excessive and false worship. To this the answer is easy, that I am far from doubting that Superstition is an ill thing, and therefore never meant to make that the question, This appears of me, because I every where acknowledge the word, Greek and Latin, to signify the worship of daemons or false Gods, only I could not but observe in the first place that the heathens who are known to worship such daemons, and not to think that a fault in themselves, did mean no new ill by that word (whether excess or other the like) either more or worse than they ordinarily meant by Religion, this being indeed their Religion to worship many Gods.  
This they must have done, if they had by that word understood an excess of Religion, and by their taking it in a good sense, as Synonymous with Religion, it appears that this of excess was not esteemed the due notion of it.  
This I thought useful to be said, that the very title of Superstition might not defame every thing as an excess in Religion, and criminous, to which it was affixed, unless it might otherwise appear that there was really any such evil in it, and this I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to show the absurdness of their concluding, who taking the word Superstition for a word of an universal ill savour, as signifying excess of Religion, first affix it to innocent ceremonies and institutions, to which it no way belongs, and then infer them nocent, as being Superstitions, without proving any charge of malignity against them) and as preparative to the discovery of the following mistakes, rather than that I ever imagined Superstition truly so called to have no ill in it.  
And therefore of this, any otherwise, then as I now say, and then meant, I shall make no question, and on condition he will never apply the word Superstition any otherwise, than the Scripture and ancient Christian writers apply it (i. e. to daemon worship, or to undue worship of the true God, in the notion of indebitus or illegitimus cultus in Aquinas, not to each such Super statutum as he will call an excess, the using of each uncommanded ceremony and the like) I shall acknowledge the word always to signify that, among all good writers, heathen or Christian, which we Christians justly deem evil, and that was clearly the Etymologist's meaning, as we showed in the last Sect. and against that there is no colour of argument offered in all this long Sect.  
For what if the vulgar translation (which he sets as the only instance of Popish Commentators) render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Superstitio? what if the Papists pretend it not to be taken in a good sense (whom I suppose far enough from yielding themselves to be Superstitious) doth that prove that Festus meant any excess by that word, or indeed any more than Religion?  
Next when he makes his observation, that in all my large discourse I bring only heathens to show the meaning of the word, and not one Divine, Greek or Latin Father, etc. who take it in a good sense] this is neither true in the affirmation, for I bring the Scripture and the Christian glossaries to testify all that I pretend to, nor yet in the application, for I do not pretend the word to signify that which a Christian counts good, but among the heathen the worship of many Gods, which none but heathens can think to have no ill in it, and consequently I pretend it only of them, and of those that set down the use of words among them, and of S. Paul when he is not a finding that fault in them, Act. 17. 22. and so still this is sufficient to prove that the word originally signifies not any excess of Religion or any other evil, abstracted from that of the Daemon worship etc. which was all that I had in design to conclude.  
And in making this use of heathen Authors, sure I have done nothing which I ever blamed in any man else, as the Diatrihist's margin accuseth me, citing the Quaere of Divorce, §. 58. where I thought it unreasonable that all the ancient Christian writers should not be as competent to give us the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes and Philo (and yet made no scruple to acquiesce in the notion, which either Demosthenes or Philo gave us, §. 57)  
For if he pleased to mark, there is here no difference between the heathen writers and others, Scripture and ancient Christians, concerning the meaning of the word Superstition, all yielding it 〈◊〉 to signify the worship of many Gods (whereas there that other person whom I opposed, professed a contrariety, and then preferred the one before the other) To which yet it is necessarily consequent, that in another inquiry, whether Superstition were among Authors taken in a good sense, some difference should be observed between Authors heathen and Christian, because it is certain the heathen worship is by us Christians most justly looked on as an ill thing, being the worship of creatures, but by the heathens thought well of, as the Diatribist here confesseth, practised and commended, and so not looked on any otherwise then Religion itself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Etymologist, used for a good thing; consequently, the thing which I contest, is not this, that the worship of daemons is or ever was true or lawful, but that beside this, supposed by Christians but denied by heathens, to be evil (adding the like of illegitimate worship) there is nothing else which hath been looked on as simply bad in Superstition, particularly not the excess, as that signifies unprescribed uncommanded worship, which is the only matter of the present contest with such as the Diatribist.  
And he doth but perplex and disturb the matter when he saith the question is, whether it doth not always in Scripture and Orthodox Divines signify excessive and false worship, for he must set the question, as elsewhere he doth, of excessive, as that signifies no more than uncommanded worship, without the addition of being false, it being evident that I defend not false worship of any kind to be good, but that ceremonies or institutions not commanded by God may yet be perfectly lawful and blameless, and that that is the only question between us.  
For the text of the Act. c. 25. 19 I have answered already, and evidenced that Festus meant nothing ill by Superstition; and the Drs. words cited from Sect. 24. of the ordinary practice of every Sect to dislike the distant worship of others, and defame it under the title of Religion, doth no way prejudge this; because it is certain Festus was no way factious for the Jews against Paul's Religion; No more doth the marginal citation from §. 22. where I have said that Superstition was made matter of reproach to the Romans; where 1. It was not Superstition simply, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not coming short of excess, of which that was said that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reproached by others, and yet as much commended by the Author Polybius in that place, and 2. That the old rule in Logic will always hold, there is no syllogizing from particulars, nor can this ever be form into a regular syllogism or valid probation, some there were that reproached the Romans Superstition, therefore Festus reproached Pawles Act. 25. 19 or spoke of it by way of defamation.  
What remains of this Sect. belongs to the place Act. 17. 23. of which I had said, 1. That the Apostle speaking of those whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more Superstitious than other men, tells them that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship the true God though ignorantly, 2. That he styles them more religious than other men, merely in relation to their worshipping the unknown (which was the true) God, which others worshipped not, and so meant no more by that phrase then that they were more religious than other men, no way appearing to accuse them of that as of their fault, but preparing thereby to declare to them that true God whom they worshipped ignorantly.  
To this many things are here objected, 1. That their worshipping the true God ignorantly with their own devised worship, was a Superstition justly to be condemned, It being gross Idolatry and sinful Superstition in the Israelites to worship the true God in the golden Calf.]  
I answer, their ignorance of the true God was justly to be condemned, according to that of Minutius Felix, Non minoris est sceleris Deum ignorare quam laedere, it is as great wickedness to be ignorant of God as to hurt him, or that of Trismegistus (as I remember) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignorance of God is a species of madness, and in another of the ancients style, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of drunkenness of the soul; But that being granted, 1. This ignorance was not the thing that denominated them Superstitious, but their worshipping many Gods, 2. Their worshipping the true God, though they knew him not, was no new species of Superstition, wherein they exceeded others, 3. Their worshipping him with their own devised worship was not it which is meant by their worshipping him ignorantly, the words in the original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, literally whom ye not knowing, or being ignorant of him, worship, i. e. worship him whilst ye know him not, which no way refers to the manner of their worship, as devised by themselves, but only to their ignorance of the God whom they thus worshipped, which therefore the Apostle applies himself to cure, and accordingly it follows, him declare I unto you.  
Lastly, their worshipping him as dwelling in Temples made with hands, i. e. in little Chaplets or Shrines or Images etc. v. 24. is not their Superstition but Idol-worship, and is very much more than the uncommanded ceremonies will amount to, and so cannot be a proper instance of their own devised worship, in the Diatribists notion of the phrase for all uncommanded worship; and sure the Israelites woshipping the true God in a golden Calf, is as little pertinent to that business, for if it be true, that they worshipped none but the true God, then was that only Idolatry against the 2d Commandment, not Superstition or daemon worship against the first, or if they worshipped the Gods of the Egyptians, or any one of them, Apis in that figure, than what was that to the worshipping of the true God in an ignorant, or by themselves devised manner?  
2dly. He saith my rendering the place more religious than other men, in relation to their worshipping the unknown God, which others worshipped not, is my gloss, begs the question, is against the text itself, I perceive that in all things ye are too Superstitious, both in their worshipping many false Gods, and in their ignorant worship of the true, and in their vicious rites of worship, adding that this sense the Dr. himself gave §. 11. I consider and behold you in all things (or in all that I see of you) as men more Superstitious than others.  
Here I perceive my words are mistaken, and therefore shall first answer to that, then to the former parts of the objection. The Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, literally, in all things, or in all respects, I look upon you as more Superstitious, i. e. (I take it, and I thought I had sufficiently expressed it before) considering all the altars and inscriptions, i. e. the names of your deities, which I see or behold, I conclude that you are more Superstitious or religious, worship more Gods or daemons, than other men.  
That this is the sense, I am inclined to believe by the reason of his speech rendered in the next, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. for passing through and contemplating your wor●…ps, i. e. the Gods which you worship, I found also an altar on which was inscribed To the unknown God. The sum of which is, that in the survey of their altars, which contained the names of their Gods, he found one altar remarkably more, then is usual among other people, that to the unknown God, the true God of heaven, which others in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship of many Gods did not worship, which being the proof or reason (expressed by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for) of the former speech, must needs give me authority to interpret it in proportion thereto, that considering all that he had seen of them, peculiarly that altar to the unknown God, he concluded them more Superstitious, i. e. worshippers of more Gods than other folks.  
That the Athenians truly were so esteemed appears evidently by what was said in the Tr: of Superstition § 11. and hath here formerly been added to that head, and therefore that will very fitly be the notion of the word, not too Superstitious, but literally more Superstitious than others, especially if it be remembered that the bare addition of the worship of the true God (however unknown to them) to their other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship of many Gods, cannot be a new fault in them, distinct from the other, or a superaddition to the guilts of other men.  
All which being considered, it now appears, 1. How far from truth it is which is here suggested, that Paul's speech of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (however rendered) belongs both to their worshipping so many false Gods, and to their ignorant worship of the true, and to their vicious rites of worship, when it clearly belongs but to one, their worshipping the unknown God, which others worshipped not. 2. How far my words §. 11. were mistaken or perverted by him, 3. How far my interpretation hath been from opposing the text itself, being the clear importance of the text considered with S. Paul's reason, as the key by which to enter into the true meaning of it; and lastly how far this is from any begging the question, when I proved so largely whatsoever I said, and when no answer is here offered to those proofs, and yet, if there were any need, here have been added farther convincing confirmations of the same thing, if yet they may deserve to be taken notice of.  
And this is all that is in the least degree needful to be said to this §. 22. unless I yet add that those words in the close of it, cited from me, that §. 31. Superstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more than in the comparative, are not very intelligible, which they would surely have been, to me at least, if they had rightly reported my sense.  
That which I said is no more than this, that Superstitiosus by force of the termination osus, may signify an excess, and that so Religiosus may also; but what is that to the use of the word, whether in the positive or the comparative, when it is the bare rendering of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as here it is, which no way signifies thus?   

Sect. 9 The Diatribist's concession of the innocence of unprescribed ceremonies, and so of all that is demanded. His censure of himself and Chamier. Authority in a Church to institute Ceremonies. Abstaining from ceremonies, because commanded by men or abused by Papists.  
THe next or 23d, §. is very brief, but yet seems to me to be very considerable, and that in such a degree that it might well make an end of this debate betwixt the Diatribist and me, for having exactly set down a 2d. inconsequence (by me noted and concluded to be such, from the opening of the Greek and Latin words) viz. that the use of ceremonies or rites in the worship of God, if not distinctly prescribed by the example or precept of Christ, should be called Superstition, and for that condemned] he answers no more but this. [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.  
I shall not here endeavour to persuade the Diatribist that he knows some who condemn uncommanded rites as Superstitious, because Superstatutum, such as kneeling at the Eucharist, using the cross in baptism, bowing at the name of Jesus, but taking him at his word, I beseech him to tell me, why then he undertook the confutation of the Tr. of Superstition, which, he must know, contended no more than this, being designed to this only end, the averting that envy and calumny, that was then frequently but unjustly cast upon our Church, upon the account of ceremonies, and which was since in the Tract of Festivals, no farther applied, then as that analogy would justly bear, which was betwixt uncommanded rites and uncommanded days of worship, betwixt unprescribed gestures, and times, both which are known to be but circumstances and accessories, no essential parts or branches of worship.  
This truly were very strange for him to be ignorant of; As it is, 'tis the yielding me the whole cause, and I have no more to contend for, but only peace, and what by perfect analogy from one circumstance of worship to another, will irrefragably be concluded from that which is here granted by him.  
'tis now pity that we that are thus suddenly pieced, should ever fall out again; Nay we are likely, if words may be believed, to be yet more firmly knit together and consolidated, for § 24. in answer to the 3d. inconsequence noted by me [that men on pretence and in the name of piety should abstain from some observances (indifferent) as Superstitious, either because commanded by lawful authority or abused by Papists] he speaks clearly that it is a worse mistake, and that he believes I cannot give an instance of one understanding Christian, that ever did abstain from observances indifferent, because commanded by lawful authority, but rather that they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worship, and so likewise for the other, that they have been used by Papists, is not all, but that by them they have been abused and counted parts of worship, and may easily return to be so accounted by others.  
But to this I must reply, lest by silence I incur the guilt of scandal of having wronged others, and of writing all that hath been written on this Theme, without any adversary to provoke me to it. First then, I profess to be able to give instance of many, that were baptised into our common faith, and so were Christians (how deeply understanding I pretend not to judge) who have abstained from the use of ceremonies merely upon this score, because commanded by their Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors, the King and Bishops, by Canon Ecclesiastical; This, said they, was laying more burdens on them then God had laid, and so usurping on their Christian liberty. And in stead of naming those men, without their consent, for that must now be the vilifying them, the involving them under the Diatribists censure, that they are not understanding Christians, I shall name one on whom he may pass what judgement he shall please, having full power to do it, this very Diatribist himself, p. 31. where 1. He hath these words, 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. 2. That the learned Chamier hath well observed, that there may be many mischiefs in a few ceremonies, if the authority to institute them be in the Church or any man or men.  
The former of these speeches is pretty home to the point in hand, for if the objection to the number or wholesomeness of ceremonies be this, that men are judges of them, as they always are when men command them, then sure it is the power of the lawful magistrate (for he is a man or men) to command, which is the ground of the quarrel, and they that quarrel thus, and abstain from indifferent ceremonies upon this score, must abstain because commanded by lawful authority. As for example, I suppose bowing when Jesus is named in the public worship (or when Christ, or when the Holy Ghost) to be in itself lawful or indifferent, because no where forbidden by God, I suppose farther, that being so, this and a few other such ceremonies may very safely be used by a Christian, though they were not commanded; I now demand, may a few, namely, three or four such ceremonies be lawfully prescribed or commanded by the Supreme power in any Church to all under that authority? And may all under that authority safely observe such ceremonies so commanded? If they may, than men may be judges what ceremonies are fit both for number and wholesomeness, which is contrary to the direct words of the Diatribist, in the former part of this speech, If they may not, than it seems what was before lawful and indifferent is now since it was commanded, and by no other change, become unlawful, which was the inconsequence I pointed at, and it seems mistook not in thinking somebody (it now seems this Diatribist) to be the very person guilty of it.  
But then the latter speech is as punctual to it as could be well imagined (and if the Diatribist have cited duly, Chamier and he are both of this opinion) For it being certain that nothing can be commanded by lawful authority, unless the authority of instituting it be either in the Church or man or men, it must necessarily follow upon the asserting of the many mischiefs in a few ceremonies, if the authority to institute them be in the Church or man or men, that there must be many mischiefs in their being commanded by lawful authority, & then no understanding Christian can think it fit for him by observing such commands to be accessary to or guilty of the introducing those mischiefs, & so must abstain on that one account of the Churches exercising such an authority, which was the very thing I deemed, and noted to be so inconsequent.  
Nay the very words of the Diatribist in this place, when he charges me of mistake, being these [that they that abstain from indifferent observances, do it because they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worship] are either a calumny against the Governors of our Church, or else they assert what he disclaims so solemnly.  
For I shall demand, Is his meaning this, that the Governors of the Church thought the ceremonies simply necessary and not indifferent, antecedently to the command of the Church, i. e. necessary by the Divine Law, though the Church had never commanded them? If that be his meaning (as seems most probable by what follows [obtruded on them as parts of worship] for all parts of worship are necessary by divine Law, though never commanded by man) than this is a direct calumny against the Governors of the Church, who never thought all ceremonies to be prescribed by God's Law, and therefore prescribed them by Canon Ecclesiastical, which argues that they esteemed them not as Divine but Humane Laws, never obtruded them as parts of worship, but as ceremonies for uniformity and decency, and as useful toward assisting, inciting, and expressing of piety outwardly.  
But if his meaning be, that being in themselves indifferent, they became necessary and not indifferent by the intervening of the Church's command, and so were obtruded on men as parts of worship (as that may possibly signify with him parts of obedience or duty to God by virtue of his command to obey our Superiors) and if this were the thing disliked in the ceremonies prescribed by the Church, than again 'tis evident that their being commanded by lawful authority, is the only objection to them and ground of abstaining from them, in the judgement of his Diatribist, at the very point of time, when he so solemnly disclaims it.  
So likewise may be said to his account of those things which are abstained from because they have been used by Papists, This, saith he, is because they have been by them abused and counted parts of worship. But truly I cannot with truth thus affirm of the Papists, that any of the ceremonies which we use from them, were ever by them accounted parts of worship, but only as useful wholesome ceremonies appointed by the Church.  
Of the difference between parts of worship and circumstances of time, place, gesture, accessaries, of worship, I have spoken at large, c. 2. §. 3. And though hereafter §. 28. this difference be fully consented to by the Diatribist in these words [some rites and ceremonies of worship are rather called circumstances of worship, time, place, gesture, which are common adjuncts of Religious and Civil affairs, then properly Religious, much less to be accounted parts of worship] yet by what hath here been said by him, it appears that all his skill lies in managing that one fallacy, putting all ceremonies and institutions of the Church under that one ambiguous phrase uncommanded worship, persuading himself or others that we introduce new parts of worship, and so do contrary to God's command, who hath set down the rule of worship, i. e. prescribed all the parts and species of worship, whereas he cannot but know that all that we say in asserting whether of ceremonies or Festivals, is no more but this, that each of these, not as parts of worship, but as decent attendants of it, though not instituted by God, have yet been lawfully and orderly appointed and observed by the Church of God in general, and are to us become matter of obligation, by that means, and as prescribed by the Governors of our particular Church, to which our obedience is due, and so that there is no degree of Superstition in us in doing that which is thus required of us, nor in those that require it in laying this obligation upon us.  
And so much for his animadversions on the three inconsequences, from which if he would really and in earnest clear himself, these debates were certainly concluded.   

Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections. What excess Divines mean by Superstition. What St Augustine. Obligation to performance, without being parts of worship. Observers of order more Religious more acceptable than others. The reason why Jewish ceremonies are interdicted. The Church of England sparing in ceremonies. Ceremonies not foreshowing Christ lawful to be retained by Christians. The abstinence from blood, long continued in the Church. The Saturday Sabbath. Negative wholesomeness not sufficient to recommend ceremonies. All folly in worship is not Superstition. The opinion of the ancient Church worth considering. No duties appointed for the circumstances sake. Time or place instituted by God is a circumstance, as well as when by man. Apostolical Divine.  
THat which follows §. 25. etc. is for the most part but revolving the same things again that have hitherto been spoken to, or the hiding himself in those obscurities which have now been explained, sometimes granting all that I assert, sometimes denying it in ambiguous phrases, as that all excess in worship not prescribed is a nimiety and culpable §. 25. that rites be they never so few, if introduced as parts of worship, are Superstitious v. 28. and the like, And the Reader must not be condemned to the penance, of having all that hath been said on these heads, repeated again, and therefore I am both in justice and charity obliged to omit particular replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the remaining Sections, yet shall read them over as carefully as I can, and observe whatever I discern may be thought pertinent to his cause, which hath not hitherto been spoken to.  
As 1. When he saith §. 26. that all Divines generally condemn it, I answer, they condemn Superstition, but mean not by it every excess in worship not prescribed, as that phrase comprehends all ceremonies and festivals not commanded by God; and those Divines that condemn this under the name of Superstition, are the men of whom only my words are to be understood, that they are so few and so modern, and of so small authority, that they were scarce worth producing, no ancient writer having ever condemned all ceremonies and festivals, which are not commanded by God, under the title of Superstition; and that 
2●. 2. qu●●… art. 1.  Aquinas' words are no way appliable to it, hath been already showed.  
As for St Augustine's place produced by me §. 33. from whence he collects that an institution of worship by men may be Superstitious, I answer, that that Father speaks there of those qui instituerunt Deorum simulachra, who instituted images of Gods, which the Diatribist could not but see, if he had pleased, and of such institutions I grant that they not only may be, but are Superstitious, but our ceremonies and Festivals are no Deorum Simulachra, images of the Gods, and so sure not liable to his censure.  
2dly. When §. 29. he affirms of usages in themselves lawful and allowable, that if they were taught or practised as necessary, or as making the observers more Religious than others, or more acceptable to God, than they would be parts of worship] (and then I must suppose by his tenure of doctrine, Superstitious) I answer, 1. That decency, or uniformity, or obedience to Superiors may be a competent ground to turn lawful ceremonies into necessary, and on those grounds joined together, I may kneel and teach kneeling at the taking of the Eucharist to be necessary, viz. not by any necessity of divine precept terminated immediately in this gesture, but by such necessity as Humane Laws, by force of the fifth Commandment, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obey those that are placed over you, lay upon me, and this is far from making this kneeling a part of worship, when we know it is but a gesture, and circumstance of it. 2. That they which pray reverently and decently, observe uniformity, obey the lawful commands of the Church, are in so doing more Religious and more acceptable to God than others, who caeteris paribus, do it not, pray irreverently, act undecently, observe not uniformity, disobey the lawful commands of their Ecclesiastical Superiors, or then they which perform the same things upon their own choices. So saith Leo de jejun: 7. men's: Serm: 3. Divinarum namque reverentia Sanctionum inter quaelibit spontaneae observantiae studia habet semper privilegium suum, ut sacratius sit quod publica lege celebratur, quam quod privatâ institutione dependitur. The reverence of the Divine, i. e. Ecclesiastical sanctions have always this privilege among spontaneous observances, that whatsoever is performed by public law, is more sacred, than what is done upon private institution. This I hope I shall not need farther to prove, and if not, then sure the teaching this or acting on these grounds, will not make my allowable action criminous or Superstitious.  
3dly. When §. 31. he finds fault with men for saying that the sole reason why old Jewish ceremonies are interdicted us Christians, is, because the observing those which foreshowed Christ, and teaching the necessity of them, would be the denying Christ to be come, paralleling this with an answer of Bellarmine's and rendering an account from Chamier, that there was another reason of their abrogation, because they did load the conscience with a yoke of a multitude of ceremonies, and that this is common to those, and to the traditions of men] I answer, 1. That it is one thing for Jewish ceremonies to be interdicted Christians, another for them not to be imposed, the weight of the yoke was the reason why they were not to be imposed, and to that the Diatribists reasons in the conclusion of §. 31. do all belong; but my speech was evidenly of their being interdicted, and that meant not only of the multitude of them, but of every or each of them, and the sole reason of that, was this which I assigned, for if the weight of the multitude were at all considered in that, than any one of them, which sure was not a multitude, would have been lawful, by name circumcision, or sacrificing, or the like, against which yet the Christian interdict lies, as well as against the whole number.  
2dly. 'tis certain that in the application of this instance to ceremonies (not prescribed by God in a Christian Church) there is great difference betwixt the Church of which Bellarmine was an advocate, and that which I undertook to defend. In the Church of Rome there is a great multitude of ceremonies and festivals, which may be capable of the title of weight and yoke, but the Church of England is far more sparing, and I had fully consented to the rule of paucae & salubres, few and salubrious, and was now disputing for the lawfulness of some ceremonies, uncommanded by God, not for the expedience of near so many, as other Christians both of the Western and Eastern Churches have received into their Canons, and proportionable to that was any one, or never so few old Jewish ceremonies, for the abrogation of which I was therefore obliged to give such an account, as was not founded in the multitude of them, and consequently could not take either Chamier's or the Diatribist's advice, to render any other then what I rendered, as I thought, from such like plain words of the Apostle, We have an altar, of which they have not power to eat, that serve the tabernacle, Heb. 13.  
In this matter the Diatribist asks a subtle question, whether if a Christian had observed some Jewish ceremony, which did not foreshow Christ to come, but significant only of something past (though they had not taught it necessary) the Apostle would not have blamed them for that as superstitious; and so for any new rites and ceremonies? To which I answer confidently, and to the latter first, that he would not, and the very ask or questioning it in that form, as if it could not be denied but the Apostle would have blamed them, is the known fallacy of begging the question: For the whole matter of controversy betwixt me and the Diatribist is this, whether every devised rite or ceremony not commanded by God, be superstitious?  
And to the former part of the question I answer as confidently, and ask him first, what he thinks of the abstinence from things strangled, and all eating of blood, was not that a Jewish ceremony? and was not that observed by Christians Act. 15. and did the Apostles blame it as superstitious? Certainly they did not. Nay, did not this observance continue among Christians for many ages? Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis habemus, suffocatis & morticinis abstinemus, we have not the blood of any living creatures in our feasts, we abstain from things strangled, and that die of themselves: saith Tertullian, Apol. c. 9 And Lucian tells us how his Peregrinus was rejected by the Christians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for eating some of their forbidden meats, which sure belongs to this matter; and in Eusebius' history l. 5. c. 1. Biblis thus vindicates the Christians from the accusation of eating of children, because, saith she, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we count it not lawful to eat the blood of unreasonable creatures. If this be not perfectly home to his question, I shall then proceed, and allege for my instance the known practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time, who as they celebrated the weekly Lords day, on the first of the week, in commemoration of Christ's resurrection, so they continued the observation of the Saturday Sabbath on the last day of the week, in remembrance of the Creation of the World. The custom appears in Tertullian de Monogam: and was continued to the time of the Laodicean Council, which orders that not only the Law, as Act. 15. 21. but the Gospel also should be read that day. And the words of Balsamon are clear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sabbaths were by the holy Fathers almost quite equalled to the Lords days: and a great deal more to the same purpose, as is elsewhere showed in the Exposition of the fourth Commandment.  
4thly. When §. 32. he so reports my words as to conclude me to affirm, that if ceremonies be but harmless, or negatively wholesome, there cannot be too much of them, This is a plain changing of sense into that which is most contrary to it; For my words are plain, without his gloss, that if they be positively wholesome or tending to edification (not contenting myself with negatively wholesome or harmless, or with any thing less than positive wholesomeness) then there will be little reason to accuse them of excess, than they will rather help devotion then encumber it, the fear of which was the main objection against the multitude of them.  
5thly. When §. 35. he pretends to prove all folly and vanity in the worship of God, to be superstition, by demanding what Superstition is, but folly and vanity?] this is a mere paralogism, (never reducible into a Logical mood and figure) by supposing things to be convertible which are not, as if I should prove a particular substance (for example, the soul of man) to be a body, because every body, is a substance, The answer would be easy, by saying, every body is a substance, but every substance is not a body, so in like manner, every superstition is folly, and vanity, but every folly and vanity, even in the worship of God, is not superstition, This was a little too gross a Sophism to impose itself upon the Diatribist, and he now sees a small measure of subtlety was sufficient to enable me for the discovering of it.  
6 xtly. When §. 34. on occasion of my speaking of that one kind of excess, of placing more virtue in some things than belongs to them, he demands what I mean by [or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church] and whether the purer ages of the Church after the Apostles had power to put virtue into things which they had not either naturally or by the rule of God's word? I answer that I never thought of any such thing, that my meaning is plain enough, if he would please to see it, in the end of §. 45. viz. that the thing, there mentioned, the sign of the Cross and the parva Evangelia, and the like, had not either naturally or by the rule of God's word, or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church, that force or virtue in them, which in the latter impurer ages they were thought to have: and I wonder what difficulty there was in understanding, or fault in affirming this, which hath no more dangerous intimation, then that the opinion or estimation of the purest ages of the Church, i. e. the first and nearest to the Apostles times, were, in any such controversy as this, very fit to be considered in their due place, i. e. next after the Apostles themselves.  
7thly. When §. 30. concerning holiness, or separation to holy from common uses, he promises to speak somewhat considerable, and under that head tells us that there is this difference between times and places separated by God, and those which are separated by men, that the former require holy duties to till them up, i. e. that the duties are appointed for the time or places sake, but the latter are to wait upon holy duties, the time or place are appointed for the duties sake] I must still challenge his promise, whereby he is yet our debtor of somewhat considerable. For certainly prayer and fasting and sacrifices among the Jews, all duties appointed by God (as in stead of the last the offertory or alms among Christians) were not appointed for time or places sake; holy days and holy places, the weekly Sabbath, and the annual day of Expiation, and the tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem, were never the end for which prayer, &c were instituted, nor is it imaginable how they should, when each of those duties, visibly prayer and sacrifice, were appointed and practised before there was any such thing, as Tabernacle or Temple instituted by God.  
Again, the time or place, when instituted by God himself, is as truly a circumstance of worship as when instituted by man, and duty is equally the substance: and it can with no probability be affirmed that the substance is appointed for the circumstances sake, or (as he is pleased to speak) to till up the circumstances, any otherwise then he would say substances were created to till up accidents, the body for the colours sake.  
As for his charge at the end of §. 39 that I make difference betwixt Apostolical and divine institutions, and therein vary from my resolution of the first Quaere, §. 22. It is soon dispatched by acknowledging I do not think that the Apostles were God, and thereupon for perspicuity sake I made these several heads of institutions, some by Christ, some by the Apostles, inspired, and commissionated by Christ, the former I called Divine, the second Apostolical, as that is not personally and immediately divine, yet not at all doubting, or giving any cause of doubt, whether the latter were not of divine original and obligation also, wherein sure I spoke after the example and manner of men, and that in order to distinctness and perspicuity, not foreseeing such cavils as this, when I thus spoke.  
8thly. What follows of Will-worship in the end of this Exercitation, must be reserved to the next Exercitation, which is the place designed for it, and for the Diatribist to take it here for granted, as he doth, that my voluntary oblation is an eminent Species of Superstition, against which, punishment is denounced in the second Commandment: when he knows that whole Tract of Will-worship undertakes to demonstrate the contrary, what is this but a mere begging of the Question, and that a prime sort of fallacious arguing, the solemn refuge of those which are destitute of all other?   

Sect. 11. A Vindication of the Tract of Superstition from uncharitableness.  
THese few things being thus shortly replied to by way of Stricture, there remains now no more on this first head of discourse, but to vindicate and approve my charity to the Diatribist, as I have hitherto done my doctrine against him. And as this is by his conclusion imposed on me as my task, so I doubt not but to find it an easy one, if he will weigh my actions in the same balance which he useth for his own, nay I wish he could as easily clear himself, who hath thus judged me.  
His words are these, §. 43. by way of conclusion of that first Exercitation, And now the Dr. may be pleased to review, and if he will recall his bitter false uncharitable conclusion §. 57 58. unbeseeming both his piety and gravity. For now it will appear that the charge of Superstition on 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 among Reformed Orthodox Divines.  
In obedience to his admonition, and in a solemn dread of having said any thing bitterly, falsely, and uncharitably, and without any manner of incitation against the Diatribist, who useth this language (which if it be not found to have perfect truth in it, must be acknowledged to be very uncharitable, I need not add, bitter toward me) I have warily and suspiciously reviewed those Sections, and I shall desire the indifferent Reader to do so too, and to tell me what syllable or minutest part of them there is, which can any way deserve from any dispassionate person, the title either of false in any degree, or of uncharitable or bitter in relation to any man then or now living.  
For this I must premise, that the severest Satire against a vice, and not a person, which carries perfect truth and justice in it, that represents a damnable sin in the ugliest colours, and no otherwise reflects upon the person of any man, then as his own conscience shall be thus awakened with a sight of his own guilt, is so far from either uncharitable or bitter, (unless in the notion wherein the wholesomest Physic or most necessary Chirurgery must undergo the same censure) that it is the greatest and most obliging Christian act of mercy, and kindness, and sovereign charity, that piety and gravity can suggest to any. And unless it asperse (by affixing such vices to) particular persons, especially those who are not guilty of them (as here the Diatribist hath in plain words affixed that foul sin of Superstition on the Dr. personally, and enlarged it to his party, which he knows must involve all the obedient sons of the Church of England, for the Dr. cannot with any tolerable charity be said or thought to be of any other party) there is no ground of charge of the least asperity in this.  
And then it is most certain that those 2 Sections can no wise fall under this censure, the sum of them being no more but this, that if the crime of Superstition were fastened on none but those on whom the Scripture directs to fasten it, all that have opposed our Church in point of rites and ceremonies, and branded the innocent as guilty of no less crime than Superstition, must be obliged to return to peace and charity, and persuasions of kindness toward us, whereas the contrary humour of those who oppose and malign our Church, daily inflames and advances into that diabolical sin of calumniating, and accusing the most innocent observances of those, whom they have undertaken to oppose, and never considers or looks on those many grosser crimes, spiritual pride, uncharitableness, faction, nay sacrilege and profaneness itself, with so much expression of aversion or dislike, as on the usage of a few and wholesome ceremonies.  
This is, as near as I can briefly paraphrase it, the sense of those two Sections, and all the asperity that is there discoverable, is but this, that enemies and calumniators have learned two of the Devils attributes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and as long as this hath palpable truth in it, and when I applied it not (so much as in my thoughts) either to this Diatribist, whose name I think I had never heard of, nor to any other particular person, and as long as it was visible that there was such enmity abroad in this nation, which thus fortified itself by calumniating others, and it being certain that it was perfect duty of charity, to endeavour the deterring and preserving brethren and fellow Christians from such guilts and dangers, and that the pointing at other sins that much more justly deserved censure, might be useful to that end, by way of but necessary diversion, I can with perfect peace of mind review those Sections, not discerning any man, or virtue, moral or Christian, any branch of either part of my duty, against which I have offended; And I now desire the Diatribist, if he be not fully of my persuasion, that he descend to the particularity, and tell me the man in the world to whom I was in those Sections uncharitable or bitter, and first to whom uncharitable, and then for the falseness, that hath by all this reply to this Diatribe, been, I hope, sufficiently contested.  
And having said thus much in vindication of myself, I can very well abstain from making use of the advantage, which is here visibly given me, of more than recriminating; I am so well satisfied with my own innocence, that I cannot be farther gratified with the contemplation of others guilts.  
And so much for his first exercitation, having I hope competently secured the observance of the rites and ceremonies of our Church from being the introducing of any new worship, or criminous excess against any of the Commandments of the first table, and consequently from the charge of Superstition in any justifiable notion, or Etymology, or acception of the word, not taking that of Super Statutum to be such.    

CHAP. V. Of Will-worship.  

Sect. 1. The state of the Question. Will-worship distinguished from the circumstances of it. The matter of man's will of three sorts. The 6. several possible notions of Will-worship. The application of them to the matter in hand. The vanity of the Diatribists distinction The scope of the 2d Commandment.  
IN the Diatribe of Will-worship, the first complaint is, that the Dr. had not (as it became him) distinguished the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, or Will-worship in English, before he began his defence of them] and to repair this unbecoming defect on the Doctor's part, the Diatribist is pleased to do it for him, by assigning it a double notion, 1. For voluntary, spontaneous or willing worship, i. e. willingness or freeness in worship commanded by God,) and then they were to blame, saith he, 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 will and wisdom of God, and then it was not so much the ill fortune as the just punishment of them to pass under an ill notion etc. For the scope of the 2d Commandment in the affirmative part being this, God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship, and in the negative, to forbid all devised worship of God 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 characterise it as condemnable in all.  
This his first §. I have thus fully set down, as the foundation of his discourse on this subject, and very fit for my direction how to proceed in the reply to it; For if I shall now punctually obey his admonition, and having, in his opinion, formerly failed of my duty, speedily endeavour to repair it, 1. by distinguishing the Greek and English word (though by giving it the exact limits in that one place, where it is used in Scripture, I had hoped well that I had formerly performed all that was necessary in this kind) and telling him clearly in what sense I take it, defending it to be no way reprovable; and 2. by showing the unfitness of his distinction here premised, and the fallaciousness of the reason, or proof annexed to it, me thinks this should set me on a good way toward the end of this second Stage, and so do that which is most desirable to the Reader and myself, confer much to our expedition in this journey.  
For the first then, I shall distinguish, as formerly betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship, whether the theological virtue, or some act thereof, together with the gradual intention and extension, the degrees and also the frequency or number of those acts, on one side, and the external ceremonies or circumstances of it, on the other side, which are not parts but accidents of worship; As in any other habit, that of justice particularly, may be exemplified, It may beside the virtue of justice, signify 1. some act of that virtue, or 2. the degree thereof, and frequent repetition (more or less) of the acts of it, but for the circumstance of time or place attending on any act of it, they will never be called justice with any propriety.  
Secondly, For [will,] the other ingredient in the composition of the word, meaning thereby the will or choice of man it may be of four sorts, distinguishable by the matter which is willed or chosen, 1. when the thing thus willed by man is forbidden by God, or 2. when 'tis commanded and under obligation, as far as the force of affirmative precepts extends (of which the rule is true, that obligant semper, sed non ad semper, they oblige us always, but yet do not oblige us to be always exercising some act of the virtues so commanded) and so when it is done, it is done in perfect concord with, and agreeableness to the precept, but yet for that time, or in that degree, it lay not under particular precept, but might without disobedience or sin, have been omitted. 3. When the thing willed, is left free and indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden by God. 4. When although it be not indifferent, much less forbidden, but good in an high degree, yet it is not under particular precept, and so may be omitted without sin, & when it is done, it is highly rewardable by God. I shall give an example of each of these branches also; Of the first, when a man himself commits, or teacheth others to commit adultery, adultery being forbidden by God, and so his action or teaching, an act of his will opposed to the will of God. Of the second when I give to the poor, yearly, or weekly, such a proportion out of my estate, which I am able to give (and so offend against no office of justice in giving) and yet am not obliged to give by any precept of Gods which lays it as a duty upon me. An instance of which, is set down at large in the Tract of Will-worship §. 32. which together with other exemplifications of the point in hand, very necessary to clear my sense, and yet in no reason here to be repeated, I must desire the Reader to fetch from that place §. 30. and so forward. Of the third, when I walk or sit still, laugh or weep, the law of God leaving it perfectly free for me to do, or omit, either of these as I shall choose. Of the last all writers, Jewish, Heathen, and Christian, give us frequent examples. Maimonides among the Jews 
p. 381.  More Nevoch. par. 3. c. 17. mentions it as the common saying of the jewish Doctors, that Reward is by God given to him that doth any thing uncommanded. Among the Heathens one for all, Plutarch who instances in acts 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of fortitude, freeing the city from Tyrants doing any great thing, which (saith he) are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, required or commanded by Law. For (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. if the Law command such things, than all must be counted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedient and breakers of Laws, which deserve not reward in war, which let the Tyrants live an hour, or which do not some of those other things which are accounted excellent and by consequence all such must be punished as offenders. So Nazianzen of the Christian Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of our Law some things lay necessity on them to whom they are given (i. e. saith the Scholiast, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (on us Christians) and danger to them who observe them not. Others impose no necessity, but are left to choice, bring honour and reward to the observers, but no kind of danger to them that perform them not, adding that as he that doth not deserve punishment, doth not presently deserve praise, so neither doth he that doth not deserve praise presently incur punishment: So among the Latins, Tertullian speaking both of continence and of abstinence, in his book de cultu Foemin. (long before he was under any suspicion of Montanism) c. 9 Multi propter regnum Dei fortem & utique permissam voluptatem sponte ponentes. Many there were which for the Kingdom of God voluntarily and of their own accord parted with that great and lawful pleasure of women. And again, Quidam ipsam Dei creaturam sibi interdicunt, abstinentes vino, animalibus exulantes, quorum fructus nulli periculo aut solicitudini adjacent, sed humiliatem animae suae in victus quoque castigatione Deo immolant. Some interdict themselves the creature of God, abstain from wine, and living creatures, the using of which is perfectly free and safe, and so by chastising of the body, sacrifices to God the humility of the soul. So S. Hierome ad Demetriad. speaking of Christ's words of selling and giving to the poor, Non cogo (saith he in Christ's name) non impero, sed propono palmam, praemia ostendo, Tuum est eligere, si volueris in agone & certamine coronari. Christ doth not command it or compel to do it, but proposeth rewards, and thou if thou wilt be crowned must make the choice. And ad Pammachium, Non tibi imponitur necessitas, ut voluntas praemium consequatur, No necessity is imposed on thee, that thy will may obtain reward. And advers: Helvidium, Of Virginity, Virgo majoris est meriti, dum id contemnit, quod si fecerit, non delinquit. A Virgin is of greater worth, while she contemns that, which if she do, she offends not. And advers: Jovinian: Ideo plus amat Virgines Christus, quia sponte faciunt quod sibi non fuerat imperatum, Therefore Christ loves them more, because they of their own accord do that which was not commanded them. So Chrysostom formerly produced on Rome 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Spiritual do what they do with appetite and desire, and demonstrate it in that they also exceed commands. So Cassian Chrysostoms' scholar, Coll. 22. c. 30. Perfecti sub gratiâ evangelii constituti, voluntariâ legem devotione transcendunt etc. They which are perfect now under the grace of the Gospel do transcend the law by voluntary devotion. And c. 29 he speaks of worldly men, qui nihil Deo voluntariè offerunt, who have no free-will-offering for God. And so Gregory Moral: in Job: Quidam praecepta legis perfectione virtutum transcendunt, Some men transcend the precepts of the law by perfection of virtues.  
To apply all this apparatus to the present matter, the stating of the question in hand, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship as terminated in the one God, the object of worship, cannot be imagined to denote any more than some one of these six things, 1. the performing any sort of worship to God, which is forbidden by him, which yet is not truly but equivocally called worship, as when the Pharisees persecuting the Apostles, was by them styled the doing God service, and the like. 2. The using any ceremony in the worship of God, which either is particularly forbidden by God, or bears analogy with those which are certainly forbidden, as among Christians sacrificing of beasts, etc. 3. Burdened the worship of God with many whether ridiculous or unprofitable ceremonies, which though they are no where forbidden severally by God, yet by their multitude become an hindrance to devotion, or a yoke too heavy for Christians. 4. Using or instituting one or more ceremonies, no way forbidden, and yet no where commanded by God, but yet such as the institution or using any of them, is founded in some pious or prudential consideration, whether of decency, as when any gesture of bodily reverence or humility is used or appointed, or for edification, as when feasts not prescribed by God, are set apart by the Church, and so by men, for the commemoration of any eminent mercy of God, for the proposing some exemplary virtues to others &c. and withal that care is taken, that they are no way offensive by the number of them. 5. Offering to the service of God any thing of which God hath any way revealed that he will accept of, and reward, if it be duly performed, though he do not by any law exact it from every man, as dedicating himself to the ministry, doing it without any hire or payment here, vowing vows of building Hospitals, Churches &c: and most eminently martyrdom, when it may possibly, and without sin be avoided by slight etc. but yet the man thinks it may much tend to God's honour in the good of souls, if he thus seal and publicly testify his obedience to Christ's commands by his blood, and accordingly chooseth to do so. Lastly, when either for the degree or frequency of repetition of any known act of worship, a man doth more than he is by God's law strictly required to do, prays oftener every day, fasts oftener (supposing he no way hurt himself, or omit the performance of any other duty, by such frequency in either of these) gives a more liberal proportion out of his estate to pious and charitable uses, than any precept of Christ obligeth him to do, and the like.  
As for that of a cheerful and so voluntary performance of any act of commanded worship, I take not this in at all, supposing that in the commands of God, not only the action, but the cheerfulness of the performance is in like manner commanded by God, and so necessary, not voluntary, as that refers to the will of man, distinguished from the command of God.  
Now for the two first of these, it is by me most readily acknowledged, that they are criminous, and of these I plead not the cause in the least, either here, or in the tract of Will-worship, nor do I apprehend that either of these are truly and properly capable of that title of will-worship, or called by it, in that one place of Scripture, Col: 2.  
Of the third sort also I acknowledge my dislike, but yet again think it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apostle, but rather to that by Epiphanius used of the Pharisee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exuberance, or superfluity of Will-worship, where still the fault is the multitude and unprofitableness of these ceremonies, not simply the use of any one, and so of each of them, the superfluity, and not the uncommandedness of them.  
Of the fourth sort, though I must affirm that it hath nothing culpable in it, but rather commendable, as referrable to the Apostle's command of decency etc. yet because it is not worship itself, but an extrinsical attendant of it, I need not allow that the title of Will-worship neither, nor apply to it the Apostles usage of the word Col. 2. but refer it to those circumstances of worship, for which or against which no command or prohibition of the word hath interposed, of which I oft spoke in the head of Superstition, and vindicated it from that title.  
Of the fifth is that I formerly spoke, and compared it with the voluntary oblations under the Law, and of that there is all reason to interpret the word in the Apostle, and that in a notion of good and commendable (no way of vicious) if it be truly such as it pretends to be, and if it be not really such, it may yet have an appearance of that, and so far an appearance of Piety or Wisdom.  
And so again for the sixth, or last, I have affirmed of it and I hope made it clear, that it is first lawful, then commendable, and rewardable by God, above a lower degree, or less frequent exercise of the same sort of worship, and yet is not under particular precept, as appears by this, that at that time, and in the same circumstances, when it is thus laudable to give so much more, the giving somewhat less is not a sin, as is manifested in the tract of Will-worship.  
And so now I hope I have exactly obeyed the Diatribist's directions, distinguished the words, and set the whole question before him as discernibly as he could wish, and therein laid grounds for that just defence of a blameless word, which was at large pleaded in the tract of Will-worship. And then I need add no more to show the impropriety and vanity of his own distinction or double sense of Will-worship, 1. for spontaneous freeness in worship commanded by God, or 2. for worship devised by the wit and appointed by the will of man, as contradistinguisht to the will and wisdom of God. For as to the former branch of the distinction, as it is restrained to worship commanded by God, so it can be no Species of that Will-worship, which respects the will and choice of man, without any necessity particularly imposed by God, and accordingly I have excluded it out of my Scheme, not out of any unkindness to it but because it necessarily belongs to another head, the cheerfulness and the worship being both supposed to be commanded by God, and so uncapable of this distant title of Will-worship. So that at the best imaginable, he hath branched Will-worship into but one part, and that was not the way of distinguishing that term.  
Then for the other member, it is so set that it hath many improprieties in it, and in brief is that great fallacy to which Aristotle refers most others, fallacia plurium interrogationum (and I remember the 
Maim: Hal: Kelc-hammikdusch c. ult.  Jews have a rule of their Vrim and Thummim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ask not of two things at once) confounding and putting together things that are most disparate, as hath already appeared by the several Species here set down, which were to be distributed into their several classes, some contradistinguisht indeed to the will and wisdom of God, but none of those defended by me, other only not particularly commanded by him, or imposed sub periculo animae, but very consonant and agreeable both to Gods will and wisdom, and so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have very little to thank him for in his distinction.  
As for his sum and scope of the second Commandment, with the name of S. Augustine and the Doctor in the margin, it already appears how little force it hath against my pretensions, it being evident that the words there cited both for the affirmative and negative part of the Commandment, belong to essential parts of God's worship, those only being prescribed and particularly appointed by God, not to each circumstance thereof, whether of time, or place, or gesture, which among us 'tis certain are not particularly prescribed by God, and yet we can so far judge of his will, by many indications of it, that he no way reproves or dislikes our voluntary observing, or the churches appointing of such, and to these only he knows this controversy here belongs, as applied to the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church.   

Sect. 2. The method of of explicating difficulties in the new Test: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense: and when in a bad, no prejudice to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
IN his second §. where he professeth not to care how oft or how seldom the Greek word is used in other Authors, or the translators of the old Testament, when the thing signified, devised or imposed worship by the will of man, ●… so decried in Scripture; I shall to his fastidious despising my method proposed, return my reason of retaining it, and to his reason, a brief demonstration of the vanity of it.  
For the first, the reason of my method in that, as in other discourses, was the great affinity and consent betwixt the Greek of the Old and New Testament, the writers being of the same nation, Jew's by birth, which had acquired some skill in the Greek Language, and yet not so much exactness therein, as wholly to assume the dialect or character of speech observed by native or Learned Greeks, or to divest themselves of the idioms of their own language.  
Upon this ground I suppose it most consequent, that for the explaining all verbal difficulties in the New Testament, resort should first be had to the Greek Translators of the Canonical Books, or the writers of the Apocryphal of the old, and then in the second place to other good Authors, from whom any light can be fetched, and when these fail in their expected aids, then to make use of other supplies, analogy of phrases or matter, with what we find in the Old Testament, circumstances of the context, and the like.  
And if the Diatribist despise this method of search, it were but necessary charity in him, to discover the faults of it and direct us to a better, which having not here done, he leaves us to surmise, that it was not his judgement, but his care to serve his own hypothesis, which infused these dislikes into him, for otherwise, the result of my way of search being only this, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but once used in the whole Bible, Col. 2. 23. the notion of it in that one place, must in all reason be resolved to be that which properly belongs to that place, especially if it proves to be such as agrees exactly with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or freewill offerings in the Old Testament, I see not what infirmity it was which could render it up to his despising.  
However, this wholly removes and evacuates all force of his reason of dislike, it being evident by that one example of freewill offerings, but much more so by other evidences, both there and here added, that there may be many acts of worship, many circumstances of worship, yea and many heights of Christian heroical virtue, which may bear proportion with worship, that are not under obligation, from any particular command of Gods, and so remain to be acts of the will or choice of man, which are perfectly lawful, acceptable, yea some highly rewardable by God, and so far from the guilt which Mr. C. affixes, of high indignity or affront to the divine Majesty.  
What he adds of the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they are but twice apiece used in the Book of Wisdom, and always in an ill notion, which saith he, is but little to the credit of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] might sure have been spared, it being as certain and visible to him, that the same word is used by St James, c. 1. 27. in as good a sense as could be wished, with the epithets of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure and undefiled before God, added to it, and v. 26. for the profession of Christianity, though for want of actions, bridling the tongue, and the like, that becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain; And as plain, that the word is in itself equally applicable to the true as to the false, indifferently to any religion, to St Paul's religion among the Jews, Act. 26. 5. the strictest sect of our religion, to the worship of Angels, Col. 2. 18. and so to the worship of Idols in the Book of Wisdom, which yet can no more tend to the disadvantage of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when that is not terminated on any prohibited object, than the use of the Latin cultus sometimes for the worship of false Gods, can prejudge voluntarius cultus, voluntary worship, when either the object is not specified, or the mention of the one true God is added to it. It being confessed and supposed by both parties in this contest, that the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship itself is not culpable, save only when the other part of the composition, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the interposition of the will (or as he will style it, the devise or appointment) of man, hath an influence upon it.   

Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. answered. The difference betwixt Commands of Magistrates and imposition of dogmatizers. What 'tis which is said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
HIS 3d §. is his entrance on the view of Col. 2. where only the word Will-worship is to be found; and in setting down his grounds of interpreting it, 1. He citeth Beza and BP. Davenant, whose words are presently answered, by adverting to the distinction formerly given between the essentials and circumstantials, the parts and the ceremonies of worship.  
2dly. He pretends to discover a mistake in me, in that I observe from v. 22. that St Paul speaks not of commands but doctrines, not of the prohibition of the Magistrate, but of false teachers imposing them as the commands of God; Whereas, saith he, the Apostle speaks expressly of these impositions, that they were after the Commandments and doctrines of men, v. 8. after the traditions of men to worship God by the observation of them.] Of which words of his, if there be any shadow of force in them by way of exception against me, the meaning must be, that the Apostle there speaks of the commands or prohibitions of Magistrates in things of themselves perfectly indifferent, and censures those commands under the style of Will-worship.  
But then this hath no degree of truth in it, for 1. The matter of the commands is no lawful matter, but either the worship of Angels (and that is criminous, as the worshipping of a creature) or the reducing of antiquated rites of Judaisme, which ought not to be reduced, being once canceled and nailed to the cross of Christ. 2. The commands were not commands of Magistrates, but of men which had no authority to prescribe any thing, especially so contrary to the doctrine which the Apostles had planted among them, the Christian liberty from the Judaical yoke. 3. The manner of imposing them was quite distant from that of the Magistrates giving laws Ecclesiastical or Civil, those are by way of Canon, as of things indifferent, in order to decency, and the like, without ever pretending them to be in themselves necessary, as commanded by God; these are imposed as from God when they are not so and that is the known sin of dogmatizing, to which I formerly applied the place; And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commands, signifies no more than so, being joined with, and explicated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines, i. e. such things as false teachers require all men to do in obedience to God, or as if they were now commanded by him, when some of them, as abstinencies, etc. having once been required by God, are now abolished by Christ, and the other, the worship of Angels, though it pretend not ever to have been commanded, but only to be acceptable to God, is clearly forbidden by him.  
So that here is a palpable mistake in the Diatribist, who observes them to be commands (meaning, as he must, if he censureth or opposeth me, commands of Magistrates) and not only doctrines of false teachers, when indeed commands and doctrines are all one, both joined together to signify these dogmatizers, pretending the things which they taught to be in force by Divine command, by virtue of the Law given to Moses, and not only such as would be accepted by God, as of the worship of Angels I suppose was pretended by those false teachers.  
For this is to be remembered here once for all, that the seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick heretics, who made up their Theology of Judaical and heathenish additions to the Christian truth; from the Jews they had many abstinences, such as were now abolished by Christ, and those they imposed as commands of God, when they were not; and from the heathens the doctrine of the Aeones or Angels, as creators of this inferior world, and so such as might, with God's good liking, be worshipped by us.  
Lastly, Those commands of theirs are not censured by the Apostle, as acts of Will-worship, or blamed, or put under any ill character for being such, any more than for being acts of humility, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joined with Will-worship in that place v. 22. but as intrenchments on that liberty purchased for them by the death of Christ v. 20. which had canceled these Judaical ordinances to all that were dead with him, i. e. to Christians, and had turned all Daemon worship out of their hearts, but had no way bound up the hands of his Apostles or their successors the Governors of the Church, from instituting ceremonies or festivals among Christians.  
When the Diatribist adds of Will-worship, that it had a show of wisdom but no more, 'tis but a begging the question, or if it pretend to be concluded from that text, it is without all ground so pretended, for if I shall grant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify only a show, no reality of wisdom, yet it is not of Will-worship that that is affirmed, any more them of humility (and I hope humility which is an acknowledged Christian virtue, hath more than a show of wisdom in it) but of the retrenchments of their Christian liberty, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. subjection to the doctrines and impositions of false teachers, which had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some either show or reality of wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Will-worship and humility, which they could not have, if either or both those, when really belonging to any, had no more than a show of wisdom in them. But of this I have said enough in the Tract of Will-worship, §. 12.   

Sect. 4. The Magistrate's power acknowledged. Inventing new ways of worship. David's appointing the Levites to wait from 20. years old, an act of a King, not of a Prophet. David's last words.  
IN the 4th. §. the main of this which I have now vindicated, is acknowledged by Mr. C. for saith he, the Apostle hath here no reflection on the Magistrates making Laws in indifferent things (and if so, why was it judged a mistake in the Doctor, when he said, the Apostle doth not speak of commands, but doctrines, i. e. not of the prohibition of the Magistrate etc. Certainly if the Doctor were then mistaken, the Diatribist is now, who confesseth the same thing, which so lately he had reproved) All his quarrel is to the Magistrates inventing a new way of worshipping God, and then I am sure he hath no real quarrel to me, after all this pompous show of writing exercitations against me, for I never was advocate for those who invented new ways of worshipping God, and if, as he saith, the Papists lie under that guilt, I have taken no fee from them, amunder no obligation to plead for them, they are of age, let them answer for themselves.  
No more am I entertained of counsel for those false teachers, who any way impose antiquated worship on God's people, such are sacrificing, sabbatizing, circumcision, and the like, and so all this while the Diatribist fights with the air, and confesses as much as his adversary desires of him, and then all that I have to complain of, is the ad quid perditio haec? To what purpose was all this waste of words and paper? I wish there were no more yet behind.  
But in this 4th §. he is pleased to take notice of one instance of mine, that of David who appointed Levites to serve from the age of 20. years, whereas God by Moses had appointed it but from 25. years old etc. And I wonder what can be replied to this my instance, to hinder it from concluding the lawfulness of making humane Laws, in such circumstances of God's worship, and those different from the Laws of God. Why, 1. saith he, 'tis impertinent, for he brings it as an instance of the 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.  
Having given this first answer under form of a first, I was in reason to expect a second to supply the defects, but the Reader will easily discern with me that there is no such, and therefore this first must bear all the weight. And to it I reply, 1. From his own confession, that it was in a matter of Religion and more than of Religion, then by the argument à majori, he must needs have power in the less, i. e. in a thing indifferent, and then sure my instance from David was more than home to my purpose (i. e. pertinent) it proved more than I pretended from it, and if the Diatribists arguments would do so too, I assure him, I should be convinced by them, I will never object to them that they have abundantly proved his position, but such acts of Supererogation he may well condemn (and will not probably be guilty of) who writes Diatribae against all actions that exceed, as well as those that come short of the Commandment.  
But then, 2. His answer to the instance of David being this, that this action of Davids was against a former command of Gods, an altering of God's appointment, and no way to be salved but by David's being a Prophet, inspired by God or directed by some other Prophet, and not imitable by any Magistrate now] What is it again but a remarkable instance what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can do?  
'tis true indeed David was a Prophet, inspired by God in things belonging to that office, and yet as true that he was a wise and prudent King, and that he made this alteration upon prudential considerations set down in that place, 1 Chron. 23. 25. and 28. etc. viz. because the burdens being not now so heavy, as formerly when they were to carry the Tabernacle, and all the instruments thereof, consequently the full strength of years was not so necessary to the undergoing them, and besides, by this means there might be more Levites to serve in the Tabernacle, then formerly there had been.  
And it is not imaginable why in a matter of this nature, in such a mere circumstance of the worship or service of God, and that so far from a contrariety to God's command (for he that lays it upon the Levites from 20. years old, no way opposeth him that had imposed it only from 25. and he that commanded it from 25. no way excluded those of 20. from being added to the service) David might not have power, as a King, or why any other Magistrate might not do the like, command what God had not before commanded, in a thing so perfectly indifferent as was the age of the Levites, wherein to begin and end officiating.  
As for his proofs, that David made this change by the Spirit or inspiration of God, as a Prophet, first from 1 Chron. 28. 19 All this the Lord made me to understand in writing by his good hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern, ascribing it to the Spirit of God, v. 12, 13. Secondly, by comparing, 1 Chron. 23. 27. with 2 Sam. 23. 2, 3. where, as by the last words of David the Levites were numbered from 20. years old, in the former place, so in the latter place it was said of the last words of David, the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me etc. These are but a heap of mistakes. For as the former place belongs only to the pattern of the Temple which Solomon was to build, described there particularly in the severals of it, from v. 11. and that pattern affirmed v. 12. to be had from the Spirit of the Lord, and so the [all this] confined to that pattern, and with no equity, or ground in the text, to be farther enlarged, or applied to David's numbering the Levites from 20. years old, so the last words of David, 1 Chron. 23. 27. are clearly David's last Will and Testament, but the last words, 2 Sam. 23. 1. are the last words of prophecy that he delivered, it being evident that he spoke many other words after that, as appears in the Chapter, and the Book following, 1 Kin. and of his prophecies it is, and not of his other words, that it there follows, the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me.   

Sect. 5. Col: 2. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Placing worship. Christian liberty. Marriage. The Glosses put on the commands of men.  
HIS 5 ᵗ §. is an examination of what I have said for the interpreting of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Col: 2. 22. This phrase I have thus rendered and paraphrased, These commands of abstinencies (Touch not, taste not, handle not, v. 21.) are all to destruction, or destructive, by the abuse of them, i. e. by imposing them on Christians, as commands of God, now when they are abolished by Christ, and for this I thought I had produced sufficient authority, to vindicate the interpretation from the censure of singularity, the plain words of S. Angustine, and S. Ambrose, or whosoever it is that wrote the Comments which bear his name, Sunt in interitum etc. they are to destruction and eternal perdition to them that believe them necessary to salvation, and sunt omnia in interitum & corruptionem per abusionem, etc. they are all to destruction and corruption by abuse, etc.  
But without adverting to the commodiousness of the interpretation, or the authority of those ancient Fathers, or giving any answer to what is said to recommend this interpretation, he is pleased to take a much easier way, to ask some questions, and offer some exceptions, First he asks, why I refuse our translation of those words?  
To this question I answer, by rendering my reasons, 1. because I think this other preferable, and I doubt not but when the Diatribist finds it useful, he will do the like in this or any other controversy; 2dly because [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] cannot by any propriety of speech, or analogy of the like phrase, signify [are to perish] but either in an active sense [are to corruption] as that in false teachers may denote corrupting or seducing of others to their heresy, and particularly to those abominable sins, which by detesting of marriage the Gnostics brought in, expressed often in these Epistles by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corruption, or else in a neutral sense, ad interitum to destruction. 3dly Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may possibly signify use, as well as abuse, yet it is as easily replied, that it signifies abuse as well, nay more properly and frequently then use; In the Bible it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, never used either in the verb, or in the substantive, but in this place; but in other authors 'tis vulgarly used in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Plutarch of Alcibiades, the Lacedæmonians rather abused then used him, and in Apophtheg: that great men have good and ill friends, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they use some and abuse others, and many the like. 4thly Because the Notion which the Diatribist from the civil Lawyers, out of Estius gives of the Latin abusus, is that of consuming use, whereas it is both improbable that S. Paul should take it from the civil Law, (much more probable that he should take it in the sense, in which we find abusio sometimes among Divines for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abstinence or not using at all: So Prosper de vit: contempl: l. 2. c. 22. veraciter abstinentes escarum non naturas sed concupiscentias damnent, ac voluptates suas desiderati cibi vel potus abusione mortificent, which sense also the words here would bear well enough, and be a more punctual character of the Gnostics abstinence from marriage, by which they brought in all abominable villainies) and if he did, it would as fitly comply with mine as with his notion of it, for thus it signifies abolition or wearing out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, usu attero & obsolefacio, and to that agrees Phavorinus, rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Suidas by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, destroying, and then this would be the rendering these impositions of [Touch not, etc.] which were once in force under the Jewish state, but now abolished under Christ, are thereby to destruction, or to ruin of souls, as when the Apostle tells them in one place of these ceremonies, that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb: 8. 13. nigh to vanishing away, to abolition, and upon that account in another place, that if they look upon them as things still in force among Christians, Christ shall profit them nothing: But this I do not really think to be the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because those that render it [using] generally apply it to the meats, which are consumed by eating (and by the way, Oecumenius, that understood it in this sense, read it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word which denotes casting out of excrements) which yet most evidently belongs to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines of abstinence, not to meats, and indeed the antecedent (to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all which refers) is, Touch not, taste not, handle not, which denotes other abstinencies, beside that of meats, particularly that of marriage, which these Gnostics prohibited, and taught to be abominable, and that is not capable of this notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by using, for sure marriage doth not perish by using. And the like may be said of unclean things, the leper, the dead, that Judaizers would not touch, which yet did not perish, were not consumed by using.  
And though in the next place the Diatribist leave it indifferently betwixt meats add ordinances of abstaining (which are contrary enough) yet the notion of using is no way applicable to the latter; for what the Diatribist sets for the interpretation of it [now being out-dated they perish with the using, without any spiritual advantage] is sure very short, it being evident by other places of Scripture, that the imposing these out-dated observances, is not only not advantageous, but moreover hurtful, those being as the Fathers generally resolve, not only mortua, dead, and so profitless, but also mortifera, deadly, destructive; and sure that is the meaning of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to perishing, or destruction] whether it denote damnation itself, or those horrible or unnatural sins, and the seduction of the Gnostics which certainly induce it.  
In the 3d place he quarrels with my interpretation for supposing that these abstinencies were imposed and taught by the false teachers as divine obliging precepts, whereas, saith he, there is little or nothing in the text to import that. What will with him, when produced against his sense and interests, be accounted great, I know not; but that there is something in the text, to incline it this way, will soon be evident, 1. by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doctrines, signify those things which are taught as from God, Mat. 15. 9 hath been formerly showed, and is evidens from the form of speech, in vain do they worship me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, where the commands of men are taught, not as such, but as doctrines of God; From hence the active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dogmatise, ordinarily denotes teaching those things to be divine precepts, and so obliging conscience, which are not, and accordingly the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs denote the having such weights thus imposed upon them being subject to ordinances (or doctrines) as we rightly render it.  
These are in the beginning of that 20. v. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the elements of the world, whether of the Jewish or Gentile service, both nailed to his cross by Christ, canceled in his death, but such as were incumbent on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that lived in the world, being under those elements, or initial ordinances, though Christians were not. 3. These are specified what they were, Touch not, taste not, handle not, abstinences from meats, and from marriage; that of meats evidently a precept of Gods to the Jews, and the Gnostics divinity being in part compounded of Judaisme, there is no reason to doubt but they taught these abstinencies, as the Jews taught them, i. e. as divine obliging precepts, and joined abstinence from marriage to that of meats, in the same form, i. e. as under precept also.  
As for that which the Diatribist adds to confirm his objection, viz: that in the next verse they are called the commandments and doctrines of men] it hath no force in it, for so really they were, and not of God, but yet were by the false teachers imposed under a more honourable gloss, as commands not of men, but of God, and therein their false teaching consisted, And it is strange the Diatribist could say of such false doctrines, that they could not be pretended, much less imposed as a divine command] 'tis as if he should say, False teachers could not teach false, hypocrites and deceivers could not pretend the authority of Scripture for their errors, the Devil could not put on the appearance of an Angel of light.  
So again 'tis with equal truth, that he saith, the traditions were not pleaded to be the commandments of God, but expressly called the commandments of men, Mat. 15. 9 when 'tis evident that those commandments of men were by the Pharisees taught as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines and so commandments of God, though by Christ affirmed in truth to be opposite to God's real commands, v. 3. 6. it being very ordinary with heretics, and hypocrites, to pretend that to be the will and command of God, which is most extremely contrary to it. And in that the Pharisees sin and hypocrisy consisted.  
Fourthly, he would ask me another question, whether the placing the worship of God in the observation of those ordinances, though not taught or imposed as God's commands, were not an abuse of them, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; And I answer, 1. By ask what he means by the worship of God, if such as man may justly prescribe or practise, either ceremonies perfectly lawful, but not prescribed by God, or more than so, that which is sure to be accepted by him, though yet it be not under divine precept, then 'tis certain 'twere no abuse; but if he mean the commanded worship of God, than his question implies a contradiction, for whatsoever this worship of God is placed in, that is taught, as command of God, for else it were not Gods prescribed worship, which yet it is supposed to be. 2. That these abstinencies being of such a nature, that Christ removed all ordinances requiring them, and purposely designed that they should be left free to men, no humane authority could lawfully impose them, no man can forbid marriage to Christians, and so any such command were an abuse of authority if given by lawful superiors; (or if given by others, an act of intrusion and usurpation, for who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren?)  
But then this may not be extended to all ceremonies and circumstances of the worship of God, times, gestures, etc. for Christ never expressed any absolute dislike to all such, nor can the imposing of such, with prudence in respect of choice, and moderation in respect of number, be by any analogic reducible to those abstinencies of which the Apostle there speaks. Nay even for those, particularly abstinence from marriage, 'tis certain that it may be lawfully practised by him that can bear it, and that all the error is in imposing it on others, contrary to that liberty which Christ hath for weighty reasons allowed, and required to continue allowable and honourable among Christians.  
Lastly, He argues from the following words, v. 23. where the Apostle says, they have a show of wisdom, in Will-worship, not as the commands of God, and thence he concludes their abuse to be, not that they imposed them as divine commands, but as parts of divine worship; But I answer, that that verse is not the setting down the abuse, or the defining wherein it consists, but at the utmost, a description of the fair glosses, those abstinencies and false worships were capable of, viz. a double show or appearance of piety, one in Will-worship, offering to God a free will offering, for such is every uncommanded, if lawful abstinence, but such was not this, and therefore 'twas but a show of piety; and another in humility, worshipping Angels as the ministers of God, humility indeed a most Christian virtue, but this no justifiable humility, (To which also a third is subjoined, that of self-denial or austerity, of the same kind with the former) and so still 'twas but a show, no reality of wisdom or piety, which consisted in this.   

Sect. 6. The Diatribist's way to make the Doctor's words witness against him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Placing worship, an equivocal phrase.  
BUt the Diatribist is so fixtly resolved on his way, that the criminousness and danger of these abstinencies, shall consist in their being devised or willed by men, and not in the Gnostick dogmatizing or teaching them to be commanded by God, that in his 6t §. the Doctor himself shall (again, according to his method taken up in his preface) be brought in to testify for him; To which purpose these words are cited from him, that the danger consists in imposing on men humane ordinances or doctrines, and then saith he, stay there a while, viz. that he may from those words, taken alone, conclude, that then they did not impose them as commands of God.  
But I know not what obligation lies either on the Reader or me, to make a pause, upon his command, in the very middle of a period, when the words which are behind make these that are cited utterly uncapable of the sense which he puts upon them; For thus the words lay in the period before he had the dismembering of them, [which words point out that wherein the danger doth consist, viz. imposing on men humane ordinances or doctrines, i. e. those things, which though they are not commanded by God, are yet by men affirmed and pretended and taught (though, as we say, magisterially and without proof) to be so commanded.  
It is not possible any word should be more expressly contrary to the Diatribists conclusion, than these, which he thought fit to solicit to bear witness on his side, and to that end cut them in the midst, and then, after the manner of the serpent, that fed upon itself, suborned and instructed one end to devour and eat up the other.  
This he saw, and therefore in the end of that 6t. §. he mentions these latter words, as the Doctor's gloss of his own former words, and saith, they will now prove his own, i. e. singular. And truly if they should prove singular, i. e. if no man in the world should be found to have ever said the like, but the Doctor, they would yet be sufficient for the turn to which they were designed, to explicate the Doctors own meaning, and to secure the beginning of his period, from being brought in judgement against him, and so might have saved the Diatribist the pains of this §. For sure no man was so fit to explain his own words, or to give his full sense in them, as he whose words they were, foreseeing that possible, which now hath happened, that otherwise they might be mistaken.  
But then 2. I shall not acknowledge my gloss a singular one, but that which the Apostles word will own as a natural and perspicuous paraphrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (reading the middle as in a parenthesis, specifying what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means, and the specious glosses which they put upon them) why do you permit such abstinencies prescribed and taught you really by men, and not by God, to be imposed on you as doctrines commanded by God, just as when the Pharisees taught their own traditions, as the doctrines of God. That this is the very literal importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be subjected, or to pay obedience as to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or command of Gods, hath already been showed, And if that be granted, there can be no farther doubt of the whole expression, nor consequently of the propriety of my gloss or paraphrase on it.  
As for the placing worship in those abstinencies, that equivocal phrase was very lately examined, and must not again return to exercise us. If they placed worship in them, in this sense, that they did or taught them as parts of God's commanded worship, 'tis the very thing wherein I placed the danger; If they delivered them as their own doctrines, and not as the doctrines of God, they did not then place any part of God's commanded worship in them; If they taught them as such things, which, though not commanded by God, would yet be acceptable to him, still, after they were abolished by Christ, than they taught that which had no truth in it, for such kinds of abstinencies are not now valued by God, but more real acts of self-denial set up in their stead, mortifying of lusts, and the like, which those false teachers were far from being guilty of. As for ceremonies of decency and order, and Festivals, really designed to ends of piety and edification; they are neither of them parallel, nor bear any analogy with these which are here censured.   

Sect. 7. Of Petitio Principii. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two renderings. The danger from mistake on the Diatribists side. My interpretation not singular. His no way probable. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particle of extenuation, no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. No show of wisdom in respect of the folly that is in it. The Will-worship parallel to the humility. The prime argument for my interpretation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for piety, vindicated from the contrary proofs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Worship of Angels. No agreement betwixt Col. 2. 18. and 23. or betwixt 23. and 1. Cor. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
HIS 7th §. is the arraigning of what my 7th had said concerning v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. And all that he there saith will lose all force, if these two things may be observed or remembered, 1. That the opposers of the ceremonies of our Church, against whom that tract was prepared, founded their conclusion on these two premises, 1. That Will-worship was a sin. 2. That the using of ceremonies not commanded by God, was Will-worship. And therefore to our vindication it was sufficient, if upon survey of that one place of Scripture where that word was used, it should be found capable of such an interpretation, which should affix no ill, but chose a good character on it; For herein the task lies on the opponent to prove his affirmative, that Will-worship is criminous, (and not on me to demonstrate the negative) and that he can never do from this text, if in this text by a commodious interpretation, it be capable of a good sense.  
This I here premise, because he so oft reminds me in this place of begging the question, when I deny the word to be taken in an ill sense, Of which Elench I cannot be guilty, unless it were incumbent on me to prove and demonstrate the negative, his affirmative being sufficiently avoided, by my showing that the contrary is possible, and not improbable, which therefore was all that was here required of me, and I hope is competently performed.  
2dly That if the words be capable of several renderings, and either of these will free Will-worship from the necessity of an ill sense, than again this is sufficient for my turn, for then still he hath not unanswerably asserted his conclusion: This I say, to give an account, why I set down two possible renderings of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either rationem sapientiae vel pietatis, reality of wisdom or piety, or else only Speciem sapientiae, a show, or bare appearance of wisdom; For of this it is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies ratio as well as Species, and much more ordinarily the former, and in case it should here signify the former, then 'tis avoidable evident, that Will-worship must be taken in a good, not ill sense; Mean while as I pretend not that both those renderings are true, for if it be only a show of wisdom, than it is no reality, so I profess to yield so much to the authority of the ancient interpreters, as to pitch upon the latter only that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a show of wisdom, not the truth, and even then, as hath been showed, the Will-worship there, is capable of a good notion, for how can those abstinencies or doctrines have so much as a show of wisdom in Will-worship and humility, if Will-worship hath nothing of wise or good, but only of wickedness (and that we know is folly) in it?  
Having premised these two things, it is now very easy to discover the fallaciousness of all that is brought against me in this or the ensuing Sections; For as to the interpretation of the verse, which he proposeth and prefers before mine, but without any convincing proof of the truth of it, this is on his part a begging the question, which even now was charged on me, with much less reason, and when he saith mine may prove a mistake, 'tis sufficient to reply, and so may his, and the danger far greater from the mistake on his side, then or mine, For if mine should be such, yet will it not follow that the Ceremonies and Festivals of our Church are such criminous Will-worship, the using of these bearing no analogy with the dogmatizing of the Gnostics, or their reviving the abolished judaical abstinencies among Christians, whereas if his interpretation should prove false, and mine true, his whole fabric must utterly be demolished, and his major and minor having both failed, the one affirming Will-worship to be criminous, the other our using ceremonies and Festivals to be Will-worship, his conclusion is not likely, I hope, to hold out long after, unless it shall pretend to that miracle which is fancied of Callimachus (and denominated him an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an immortal warrior, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the statue of Mars) who is supposed to stand and fight after he was dead; And then 'tis time to retreat from this combatant, with the Epigrammatist;  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
But then 2dly. when he vilifies mine, resolving it singular without any precedent, ancient, or modern, Protestant, or Papist, First, This hath no truth in it, as will anon sufficiently appear, At the present, I shall only remind him, that within two years after the Treatise of Will-worship was printed, came out Grotius' posthumous notes on the Epistles, and those are clear for this interpretation, and so though they could not be my precedent then, will now secure me from singularity.  
Secondly, The Diatribist's interpretation is so far from being demonstratively true, that it hath arrived to no degree of probability: It is this, that v. 23. contains a reason of the danger and destructiveness of those abstinencies, viz: because they were no other, nor better than Will-worship with 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.  
But I demand 1. how doth it appear that this verse contains a reason of the destructiveness of those abstinences? 'Tis not so much as introduced with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, or any other form of proof, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which things indeed have a show, etc. which is a form of extenuation (as the Diatribist acknowledgeth in this §. speaking of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and then cannot reasonably be a proof of the destructiveness of them, but the conceding somewhat, speciously at least, in favour of them, that they have indeed a show of wisdom in them.  
2dly What words are there in that verse, which can bear, or give any pretence to that paraphrase, that these abstinences are destructive because no better than Will-worship? The words in the Diatribists own rendering are no more but this, which things indeed have a show of wisdom in Will-worship and humility; But can this bear or induce this conclusion in any mood or figure, Therefore they are destructive because no better than Will-worship?  
Is it not much fairer and more reasonable, which I concluded, they have some show of wisdom in Will-worship, therefore Will-worship, if it be truly such, hath some reality of wisdom in it? for else that which hath but a show of wisdom in it, cannot have that show in respect of Will-worship; Adultery being itself folly, 'tis absurd to say of any man, or doctrine, that it hath a show of wisdom in adultery, or in respect of the adultery that is in it, for that were to affirm it to have a show of wisdom in no other respect but that it is foolish.  
I acknowledge indeed that as it was but a show of wisdom which they had, so it was but a show of Will-worship, or voluntary offering to God, and so a show of not a true humility; but still that doth but the more confirm (not confute) my conclusion, that Will-worship truly so called, and humility, that real virtue, are branches of Christian wisdom, or else, the having but a show of them, would not give them so much as the show of wisdom.  
3dly When the former part of his paraphrase is [they are no other nor better than Will-worship] how can that be coherent which follows in the second place, that they carry a great pretention of humility and self-denial? when those two are regularly joined with Will-worship [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Will-worship and humility, and not sparing the body] Certainly as the humility is, such must the Will-worship be, if the humility be only in pretention, than so must the Will worship be also, in pretention, not in truth, and then still the fault or defect will be in the bare pretending, not in the Will-worship, as it is not in the humility or self-denial, by the Diatribists own confession, but in the false pretending them. How much then is it more reasonable to do what I did, viz: to allot to Will-worship and humility, and self-denial, to all three, the same state, whatsoever it be, whether of virtue, if they be really what they pretend, or of hypocrisy, if they be bare images or appearances of them? And on this I insist, as on the main ground of enforcing mine, and invalidating his interpretation that Will-worship, humility, and self-denial being here placed together in the same classis or series, they cannot be so separated, as that one shall be a vice, when the other two are acknowledged virtues in a Christian, one really what it pretends, and the other only feignedly, or in pretence, without any reality in them. When the Diatribist shall answer this argument, he may then tell others of mistaking, but till then, the mistake may much more probably be on his side.  
Thirdly, What the Diatribist adds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wisdom, which I took in the ordinary notion of piety, is sure more strange in him, than what he censures in me; in the Proverbs and elsewhere he acknowledges it must signify piety, but here it must not, but literally wisdom, to which purpose he citys Bishop Davenant, who expresses it to denote some excellent doctrine rather brought from heaven, than found out by men; But if that be the meaning of it, then sure, as such, those false teachers taught it i. e. as coming from heaven, and that is as a doctrine of God, and that was even now denied, when I affirmed it: 2dly How can those abstinencies have a show of coming down from heaven in Will-worship, and yet Will-worship signify worship devised by the wit and will of man? 'tis as if he should say, they pretend to come from God, in that they come only from men; whereas in the notion of wisdom for piety, the words run very currently and intelligibly, they pretend to have piety in them, viz: such as is discernible in Will-worship or free-will-offerings, in humility, in self-denial &c: Well, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies piety in this place, I appeal to S. Chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, by way of Paraphrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he appears to be (though really he be not) pious, religious; And Theophylact in the same words.  
A● for his proofs of the contrary, they are of no validity.  
The first is from the context v. 8. where the Apostle calls it philosophy; But first, v. 8. hath no contexture with v. 23. 2dly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the philosophy there spoken of, the joining of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Angels with God, the Gnostick Theologie of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the Platonic and Poetic Theology of the heathens, had not so much as a show of any excellent doctrine brought from heaven, as the Diatribist even now from Bishop Davenant expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify, at least not such as of which S. Paul could affirm that it had any image or show of such.  
3dly. 'tis confessed on both sides that the things here spoken of, and said to have a show of wisdom in Will-worship and self-denial, are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of abstinences from meats and marriages, and those abstracted from the error of dogmatizing, have indeed a show of piety in those two respects, that he which abstains voluntarily shall seem to practise a special piece of self-denial, and to offer to God a freewill offering of abstinence from meats and marriage.  
As for that of worshipping of Angels, which I suppose a corollary of the philosophy, v. 8. that also hath a show of piety in humility, in worshipping the officers and ministers of God, as not daring to approach immediately to God himself; But then this, as it rather confirms the notion of wisdom for piety, then confutes it, so it cannot have any such influence on the other branch of abstinences, as to qualify them to have any show of divine doctrine in Will-worship and humility, especially if Will-worship continue to signify, as the Diatribist will have it, worship devised by the wit and will of man, for then, as was said, they must have a show of coming from heaven, in this very respect, that they come not from heaven, but from the wit and will of men.  
His second proof is, because v. 18. the worshipper of Angels is said to be puffed up in his fleshly mind, i. e. in a carnal conceit of his own wisdom, in finding out that way of worship, and to that purpose Irenaeus is cited not as an approver of this interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for in the place cited he speaks not a word to that matter, not so much as reflects upon that text) but to 
● Sapientiam rnusquisqne eoum di cit, quam à semet ipso adinucnit. Ir. l. 3. c. 2.  testify, that the fictions of men are by them counted wisdom.  
But to this I answer, 1. That this proof extends not to the doctrines of abstinences, which we know are the immediate antecedent, and the principal thing here spoken of. 2dly. That what is said of the worshippers of Angels, that they are vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds, is there set as an aggravation of their crime, and as the cause of their assuming to know what they understand not, whereas this of having a show of wisdom, being introduced with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was by the Diatribist confessed to be an extenuating particle, cannot be designed to aggravate their sin, nor consequently to be parallel to that of v. 8. And so indeed to have a show of wisdom in some respects, differs very much from being vainly puffed in their fleshly mind, the one placing that show in somewhat that is really good, though falsely pretended to, the other placing it in their own carnal minds which have nothing good in them. As for the place in Irenaeus directed to in the margin, it speaks quite of another matter, mentioning neither of these verses, 18. or 23. and so cannot be vouched for an authority to prove that they are parallel one to the other.  
What he adds, that it may very well be parallel to that place, 1 Cor. 2. 4, 5, 6. will be soon dispatched by any reader that shall compare the places, for he will certainly find that there is no kind of agreeableness betwixt them, the one speaking of the arguments, miracles etc. by which the truth of the Gospel was conferred to men, and not by Topics of humane persuasion, the other of the show of wisdom which the Gnostics doctrines of abstinence had in them, which sure are things competently removed from any possibility of corresponding one with the other.  
But saith he, to assert those abstinences as a worship of God, to have somewhat of real wisdom or piety in them, is a plain begging the question now betwixt us] To this I have premised the answer in the beginning of this §. showing how far I am from a possibility of begging the question, whilst I do but answer to the argument drawn from this text, and show that it may well (I need not prove that it needs must) have some other importance then that in which alone their argument against Will-worship is founded. But then 2dly. I shall freely gratify the Diatribist, and having mentioned that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for some reality of wisdom or piety, only as possible, I shall gladly yield, that it doth not so signify here, but rather some show of wisdom or piety, and then I hope I do not beg but grant, give him the utmost in this, which he desires, not crave any favour from one, who will no more willingly afford it.  
What follows of my denying Will-worship to be here condemned, but not proving it, is a little strange, when he knows I solemnly propose the reasons of my contrary assertion §. 11. etc. which being certainly as yet not answered, or so much as taken notice of in this place, I wonder I should be again so soon accused of petitio principii, begging the quaestion without proof.  
As for my presumption in mentioning, (for I did no more) the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I desire his pardon, for truly I did not expect it should be so fastidiously cast off (the use of it being as fit for his rendering, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some show, as for mine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandam rationem) or that the bare taking notice of it as possible, not presuming it as certain, or offering it so much as my conjecture, should so seriously have provoked him; As it is, the advantages are so slender which I aimed at by it, that I shall very contentedly lay it aside, and no farther solicit his patience for it, though 'tis sure enough that many more considerable changes have by sober men been proposed in explicating that Book.  
As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quidem, indeed, for which I am charged that I leave it out (though if I did, what greater fault have I committed, than St Hierome had done, who, saith the Diatribist, thinks the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is redundant? yet) I guess not upon what grounds it should be affirmed, when it is visible in the beginning of §. 7. that I keep it in, and by what hath now been said, that it is mine, not his interest to keep it in; All the appearance he can have for thus affirming is, that in proposing that reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two words, I set it down thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— but as there I leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so I leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all the rest of the verse, and only set down so many words as are sufficient to express what I mean by dividing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into two words, without any thought (if I may be believed) of leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seeking any advantage by so doing, or of aught else than what I now declare to have been designed by me.  
But for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adversative, which he next considers, I profess not to divine his meaning, there being no such particle in the verse, as far as any of my copies or my eyes can direct me.   

Sect. 8. The abstinences how taught by the Gnostics. Their pretences for them, no realities. Abstinences may be freewill offerings, and self-denyals. Such may Fasting duly qualified. Such may virginal Chastity. Paul's judgement of it. chrysostom of things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Abstinences positive acts. And yet, if negative, may be acceptable. These abstinences not commanded.  
TO his 8th and 9th §§. there is little for me to reply, which hath not been cleared sufficiently already; Only in the end of the 9th he saith there is a great mistake in comprehending these abstinences under freewill offerings; for, saith he, both the freewill offerings were something positive, and these abstinences were negative, rather not offering then offering, touch not, taste not &c. and all these abstinences were commanded by special Laws, but freewill offerings, the Doctor saith, were not required of them by obligation of particular Law.  
Of this my supposed mistake, I must give some account, thus, The abstinences here spoken of I suppose to be of two sorts, from meats, and from marriage, both which were now perfectly lawful to be freely used sine discrimine, by Christians; Those therefore that taught them to lie now under interdict, were dogmatizers and false teachers; This therefore was a great fault in them, contrary to the clear Christian doctrine of liberty from Judaical observances, (of which sort were those abstinences from meats) and of the honourableness of marriage among all, when the Gnostick detesters of marriage, making it damnable, and the abstinence necessary to salvation (and so in the words of the Apostolic Canon, abstained and taught that abstinence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not as an exercise, but out of detestation of marriage) brought in all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dishonourable, vile affections, and practices in stead of it.  
This double error being noted and censured by the Apostle, he yet shows the pretences, whereby it was recommended by the false teachers, to those seducible persons corrupted by them, viz: that these abstinencies were acts of voluntary worship and self-denial, and so could not fail to be acceptable to God. That they were truly such, I never imagined, but that they pretended to be such, had some show at least of piety in these two respects, pretending on one side to voluntary worship, on the other to self-denial, but then had really no more of these, then of the piety which they pretended to have; If they had the least degree of piety in them (reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and rendering it quandam rationem somewhat of wisdom or piety) then that was in this respect, that there was somewhat of voluntary oblation and self-denial in them; If they had not the least reality, but only a show, (and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some show agrees as commodiously to that) then still that show was in these two respects, that they had also a show of Will-worship or voluntary oblation, and of self-denial. And so still I am free enough from any necessity of acknowledging his charge of comprehending abstinencies under freewill-offerings, when I only affirm that they were recommended by false teachers under those specious colours.  
Yet now ex abundanti, and to gratify the Diatribist, by throwing a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before him, I shall not doubt to affirm, that such the abstinencies may be, and so they may be recommended by the Orthodox Church (which is far enough from these foul Gnostics) that they may very safely and fitly be comprehended under the head either of freewill-offerings or Self-denials. Of the latter there can be no doubt, for fasting and virginal chastity are certainly acts of Self-denial, denying ourselves the enjoyment of those satisfactions, which might most lawfully be enjoyed: And if to this of Self-denial be farther added the designing of this to the honour or service of God, fasting in order to Christian ends, either as an outward effect and expression of Godly sorrow, or as an instrument of bringing the body into subjection, fitting myself for more leisure and ardour in prayer, acting revenge upon myself for the intemperancies of the former life, and, as to the very Self-denial, looking on it as that which will be acceptable to God, though not (to every possible act) commanded, sub periculo animae, and as such dedicating it to God, this sure will be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or voluntary freewill-offerings, and so properly comprehended under that head.  
And the same is as visible of virginal chastity, which is no where commanded by Christ or his Apostles to any, but yet recommended to them which are able to bear it, he that can receive it, let him receive it, and the advantages of it, under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable, 1 Cor: 7. 35. set out by S. Paul in order to the advancing of some Christian ends, purity of body and Spirit, caring for, or minding more intently the things of the Lord, being without solicitude, in times of distress, when the cares of the world may very much encumber all, and probably ensnare many; Upon which grounds the Apostle, that out of his fatherly care would have them aspire to the greatest perfection, and so wishes them this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth also profess it his judgement, that he that thus abstains from marriage doth better, even when he that marrieth doth well, and consequently proposes this whole matter not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any command of Christ's, for he professeth to have no such, but as his opinion or judgement v. 25. and 40. which what is it but the very notion of freewill-offering, such as of which S. chrysostom saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Tom. 3. p. 382.  it is an act of my own will, in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a precept, or command, precedent, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Those things which are done above the precept, have in this respect great reward, but those which are in the rank of precept, not so much.  
As for the reasons produced by the Diatribist, certainly they will be of no force against this evidence; for why may not virginity, or fasting deserve to be accounted positive things? is it not as truly a positive action to conquer as to satisfy, to subdue as to glut my appetite? and if self-denials be negative things, and yet acceptable to Christ, what prejudice will it be to these abstinencies, though they should be deemed negative also? Are not all the obediences that are performed to negative precepts, compliances with those negations, and so negative also, as not killing, not committing adultery etc. And shall not the same be said of all abstinences? If Adam had not tasted the forbidden fruit, this had been but negagive, yet an act of obedience to God, and that preferred by God before all burnt-offerings and sacrifices, prescribed, or voluntary, And then what diminution could it be to an abstinence, or prejudice to its being a freewill-offering, that it is a negative act? So wide is this kind of arguing from proving any thing.  
And as wide is his second proof, that these abstinencies were commanded by special laws, when he knows that abstinence from marriage was never commanded by any law of Moses, or Christ, and that that other from meats was now left free by Christ, those special laws under Moses given to the Jews being now cassate and canceled by Christ. This sure is enough to his present velitations, what he hath of reserve for a weightier impression, shall then be warded when I see it approach, and therefore so much for these two Sections.   

Sect. 9 Compliance with Papists. The Diatribists inconstancy.  
HIS 10th §. being an introduction to his survey of my six reasons for the taking Will-worship Col: 2. in a good creditable sense, begins with a general, but that posing, confounding note, that taking the word in a good sense, the Doctor complies too much with the Papists (most of them taking it in an ill) who use to take off the force of the Protestants objection from this place against their Will-worship, by answering, that it is taken here in a good sense, for voluntary religion or worship] To which I confess myself unable to give any answer, as not guessing wherein the objection lies, whether in my complying, or not complying with the Papists.  
The words expressly tell me, that taking it in a good sense I comply with the Papists, and yet there are other words as expressly pronouncing, that most of the Papists take it in an ill sense: The only expedient to me imaginable to reconcile these contradictions (which yet I have no pretence of imputing to the Printer, or to any but the Author) is this, that though most of the Papists take it in an ill sense yet some though smaller number of them take it in a good, and so defend their many traditions of worship (as he calls them) and answer the Protestants objections (the Diatribists and his partners) from that text, Col: 2. and then that I differ from those Protestants, and comply with those Papists.  
And if this be the meaning, then as 1. I can truly say, that I borrowed not this interpretation of that word or text from any Popish writer, but from the weighing the text itself, and the characters I found in it (the same that Hugo Grotius hath discerned also, as was said) and accordingly set those down for the reasons of my interpretation; so if I shall truly be found to have complied with any Papist herein, yet 1. I shall never startle at the interpretation, upon that account, many Papists having given the true senses of many places of Scripture; and 2. I shall with much more justice be able to retort this argument on the Diatribist if I may believe himself, the sense which he hath given, viz: the ill sense, being owned by most of the Papists, as he here himself confesses. And then sure he that is acknowledged to comply with most of the Papists, and not he which is but accused to comply with some few of them, must needs be most guilty of that crime, whatsoever 'tis fancied to be, which consists in such compliance.  
Nay 'tis not long since he affirmed of my interpretation of this verse, that he believes it is singular without any precedent, either 
Diatr. p. 44.  ancient or modern, Protestant or Papist, and then I have little reason to believe his bare general suggestion against his own belief, that the Doctor herein complies with the Papists, especially when out of Chamier, he here adds that that learned and acute man, Panstrat: l. 3. c. 6. §. 5. professes he never saw the good sense in any interpreter of the place.  
So then this general note is not likely to tend much to our prejudice, I proceed then to his more particular answer to my reasons.   

Sect. 10. A reply to his answer of my two first reasons for the good sense. Humility and Will-worship associated, either both real or both pretended. Popish laniations why culpable. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fasting a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 far from hurtful or abominable, wherein the profit of it consists. The true sense of 1 Tim. 4. 8. wherein the illness of it consists. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Abstinence because of abuses. For Religion. Marcionites. Durand. A show of Piety in Will-worship. All show of good in respect of somewhat that is good. The Diatribists fallacious instances and questions.  
ANd my first reason being taken from the joining of Will-worship with humility, one undoubted Christian virtue, and not sparing, or, as Calvin, mortifying of the body, To the former his answer is, that by my favour humility here is not the true and laudable Christian virtue, but a mere counterfeit, a pretended humility fit for a pretended Will-worship.  
And I reply, that if it be so, it fits my turn very well, for still Will-worship and humility are associated, the pretended Will-worship, he saith, with the pretended humility, and consequently that as the fault is not in the humility, but in the pretending of it, when it is not true, the falseness and counterfeitnesse of it, and that an evidence that the humility, if it were truly such, were a Christian virtue, because the fault is in the feignednesse of it; so by the analogy of reason, it must hold of Will-worship, that when that is truly such, it is a Christian virtue, and that the only fault is, that it is not what it pretends to be, and so that is still a valid argument for the good sense of the word, Will-worship, though not of the disguise and false appearance of it, the bare show even of divine worship itself being acknowledged to have nothing of good in it, which yet certainly the reality of it hath.  
As for that of the Self-denial, it is, saith he, not only a counterfeit, but an impious mistaken mortification, viz: when 'tis made a worship of God, and he instances in the Romish ridiculous Penances, Pilgrimages, etc. and asks what 'tis that makes them impious mistaken mortification, not their being held forth as commands of God, for that they deny, it must be then, saith he, because they make them worships of God, voluntary worship] Here again the former reply is in force, if it be the counterfeitnesse and impiety of the mortification that defames it, than still the self-denial and mortification, truly so called, is a Christian virtue, and then that will conclude the Will-worship to be so too, if it be truly what it pretends to be.  
As for his instance, and question founded on it, it answers itself, for as it is not their holding it forth as the command of God, so neither is it their making it the worship of God, that renders it culpable, but the ridiculousness of it which he mentions, the unfitness or inordinableness to that end, to which it is designed; such laniations of our own bodies being on that account, and by their affinity to the bloody sacrifices under the Law, deprived of all appearance of being acceptable to God, and so for all other sorts, which are not either regular effects of Godly sorrow, or designed as expedients to make it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lasting and durable repentance (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 revenge, 2 Cor. 7. 11. is defined to be) For whatsoever is truly so, I must not be so injurious to it, as to doubt of the acceptation with God, or to censure it either as impious or ridiculous.  
My 2d. reason for the taking Will-worship in a good sense, was this, because these abstinences are said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether that be some small reality, or else a bareshew of wisdom in respect of the Will-worship discernible in them, neither of which they could be said to have, if Will-worship had passed with St Paul for foolish or impious, for how can a thing be said to have so much as a show of piety in respect to any sin, as lust, or rage, discernible in it? To this his answer is long and perplexed, 1. By rejecting that notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for any degree of real wisdom; And to this I that did not really adhere to that, will not be so far concerned in it, as to make any reply or at all to endeavour to defend it, or to add of it farther than this, that the bare possibility that it might so signify, supersedes all demonstrativeness of proof from this text, for the criminousness of Will-worship.  
But upon this occasion he takes liberty to consider the Apostles words of bodily exercise, 1 Tim. 4. 8. and of that affirms when it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable for a little, the meaning is, 'tis profitable for nothing, nay hurtful and abominable.  
To this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I must interpose, that this is a very strange and groundless interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable for a little, i. e. for nothing, and even less than so, hurtful and abominable. It is, as if when Agrippa tells Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little way thou persuadest me to be a Christian, he should interpret it, that Agrippa was not at all persuaded by him toward Christianity, but on the other side was more confirmed in his Gentilism.  
To this purpose it is observable, that although the bodily exercise in that text be by some of the ancients understood of bodily labour, yet they which do so, render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so, as to signify somewhat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it profits the body a little and for a while, saith St chrysostom and Theophylact, (and so we know it doth) and S. Hierome in like manner, ad breve tempus in carnali proficiunt sanitate, they are for a short time profitable in respect of bodily health, and so likewise those others of the Ancients, Ambrose etc. who understand it of fasting, (so doth Leo also Serm: de jejun: 7. mensis, sometimes in that phrase of corporum labour, the labour of bodies, Serm: 2. sometimes of exercitatio continentiae, quam sibi quisque proprio arbitrio indicit, the exercise of abstinence which every one by his own choice lays on himself, Serm: 3.) conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote some degree of profit, utilitatem cujusdam portionis, saith Leo, though not so great as belongs to that which is understood by piety in the next words.  
Thus the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies among the Rabbins that which is in some degree profitable, but within certain bounds, and so also among the Greeks, as when Plato saith of Socrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Socrates is a little to be considered, but truth a great deal, and proportionably here the comparison lies, bodily exercise is profitable for a little, but godliness is profitable for all things.  
As for his censure, that by consequence to this interpretation, he fastens on bodily exercise, in this notion, taking it for abstinences from meats and marriage, without relation to that of the Dogmatizers teaching and requiring that abstinence as from things forbidden by God, i. e. (in effect) on bare voluntary fasting and celibacy (when they are only used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for exercise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with detestation of marriage or meats, as the ancient Canons have it) viz. that they are hurtful and abominable [I need say no more, but that it is an ungrounded and unwary affirmation, no way to be justified or excused unless still he relieve himself at the dead lift with the supposition, that they are made the worship of God.]  
And then again as that cannot be applied to abstinence from marriage, in his notion of worship (for even they that make that a thing acceptable to God, and a state of perfection, do not count it a worship, unless in a general sense, as every virtuous act performed to God, may be styled worship, and so this, being not under precept, but commended, a Will-worship) so being applied to abstinence from meats, it can be of no very good consequence.  
For Fasting hath long been numbered among the sorts of Christian sacrifice, and is so set down by 
2a 2ae qu. 85. art. 3.  Aquinas from that of S t Paul of offering up our bodies a sacrifice to God, Rom. 12. which, saith he, is done by fasting, continence, martyrtome; Leo calls it continentiae libamen, the sacrifice of abstinence. And 
Ad Celantiam Ep. 14. Tom. 1. p. 31.  St Hierome speaking of it, useth this style, quicquid supra justitiam effertur Deo, making it an offering to God, though not under precept, and before him 
De cultu soem. c. 9  Tertullian, speaking of abstinence, Humilitatem animae Deo immolant, they sacrifice to God the humility of the soul. And li: de Resur: Carn: c. 8. Sacrificia Deo grata, conflictationes dico animae, jejunia, & feras & aridas escas, Fasting a sacrifice acceptable to God. And yet higher, it is the express saying of St Luke concerning Anne, that she did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve God in fastings and prayers, Luke 2. 37. And agreeable to this it is, that our Saviour mentions it together with prayer and almsgiving, Mat. 6. and promiseth it a reward, v. 18.  
That the other two are species of worship, and the solemn Christian sacrifices, so styled by the holy writers, there is no question; and then why, or how should Fasting which is the third, if it be qualified as it ought, be degraded from the honour, and for no other crime, but only for being taught to be what really it is, i. e. an acceptable worship of God, become hurtful and abominable?  
By the way, would this be affirmed by the Diatribist of hearing Sermons, in case it should be taught, or assume to be a part of God's worship? would it presently be cast out as hurtful and abominable? And yet sure bare hearing of Sermons is not any acknowledged branch of worship.  
Something, I acknowledge, of difference there is, betwixt this of Fasting and those other two of Prayer and almsgiving, to which Christ annexeth it; Fasting receives the chief of its virtue and estimation, not from the act itself, which is but a self-denial, but either as an effect of piety, as flowing from godly sorrow, and so joined with 
Affictio corporis peccatorum indulgentiam deprecatur: Hierom: in Isa: 58. Tom: 4. p. 191. F.  prayer for pardon, or as an 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom: 6. p. 476. l. 17.  help or expedient toward piety, whether by subduing of carnal desires, by 
Eò affligunt carnem suam, quo animae frangant superbiam. Hieron: ad celantiam Ep: 14. Tom: 1 p. 39 8.  humbling the soul etc. or by fitting and gaining us leisure and ability for 
Eodem tempore vac●mus orationi, ne interior homo noster Draconis vescatur carnibus. Hieron: m Isa: 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chrysost: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 15. Tom: 6. p. 573. l. 16.  prayer, and for 
Frange panem esurienti, partem pams quam si non jejunares com●sturus eras. Jesumum tuum non sit lucrum marsupii, sed satu●●tas animae. Hieron: Ib: Tom: 4. p. 191. G. Quod vestris usibus religiosâ parcitate subtrabitis, in alimoniam pauperum, & in cibos debilium transferatis. Leo de Jejun: 7. men's: Serm: 4.  almsgiving; and if it be the bare abstinence from meat abstracted from all of these, it is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chrysost: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To. 6. p. 476. l. 25.  no such eminent or acceptable worship of God, Haec enim virtus adjumentum est, non perfectio sanctitatis, this virtue is an hélp, not the perfection of sanctity, saith 
Hier: Tom: 1. Ep. 14. p. 39 A.  S. Hierom, ad Celantiam; But then still such a help it is, and that to more ends than one; For speaking of Chastity, he adds, non huic tantummodo, sed omnibus omninovirtutibus abstinentia opitulatur, fasting is helpful not to that only, but generally to all virtues, And so S. chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fasting is a medicine, but that useless, if it be not used as it should be.  
So that still looking on it but as such, it is I hope more capable of the titles of useful and profitable for somewhat, then of hurtful and abominable; As it is an instrument of good a help, or medicine, so sure 'tis profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in some lower degree, in order to those uses; And what if by our faults, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith saith chrysostom, because of the unskilfulness of those that use it, it become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 useless, yet sure this is no defamation or prejudice to it; The most generous medicaments may thus be rendered useless and inoperative, yet are in themselves very apt to work cures, and so prayer itself may become utterly unprofitable, by the like miscarriage of ours, And more especially hearing the word, which is very proper for excellent uses, for instruction, admonition etc. doth yet in the event very frequently prove unprofitable, and yet this is no prejudice to the institution.  
By this I suppose, the exact importance of the phrase may be collected, as bodily exercise is not opposed to, but compared with godliness, and [profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a little] to [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all things, having the promise of this life, etc.] viz. that such exercises as these, fasting particularly, is a very good instrument in a pious man's handling, profitable and advantageous in its degree, in order to mortification &c. to testify our sorrow and repentance to assist in the deprecating of God's wrath, to qualify us for relieving of others, for ardent intense prayer, etc. but yet must not be magnified above its proportion, being compared with universal piety, which is profitable to all things, and hath the promise of this life and of another. This falls very low in that high comparison, it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, profitable for a little, whether in extent of matter, profitable for fewer things than piety, which is profitable for all things; or in extent of time, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes is rendered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable for this time of life wherein all those benefits are to be reaped, to which fasting is profitable, humiliation, mortification etc. but especially in the former notion of this extent, profitable for some few things, in comparison. And so much ex abundanti for the vindicating that text of the profitableness of bodily exercise.  
Before he leaves this, he adds that the Doctor seems to place the illness of these bodily exercises in this, when they are taught as necessary, to the defaming of meat and marriage; But— I answer,  
That I did so place their illness, I thought I had done it on very good authority, that of the ancient Canons, particularly of the 51 Apostolical, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. If any Bishop or Clerk abstain from marriage, flesh, wine, not for exercise, (abstinence or continence) but for detestation, he forgets that God created all things very good, male and female etc. and blasphemously calumiates the creation, and therefore must either reform or be deposed. 'tis visible here wherein that fault consists, not in the abstinence, but looking on meats and marriage as unlawful things, which they could not be, but as they are supposed to be forbidden by God, And Zonaras' comment on it is very natural, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Abstinence for the virtues sake is to be allowed and commended. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but abominating those and rejecting them as hurtful to the soul, this is it which is criminous and censurable. And Balsamon adds, that as they shall be censured which abstain from them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they are causes of ill to those that abuse them, instancing in Bogomilus which did so; so he that abstains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for religion or piety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not be censured. As cautious a prevention of this Diatribists doctrine, and as seasonable an advertisement to him, as could have been imagined.  
To these testimonies I might farther add that of Tertullian, who affirms that among the followers of Martion and Tatianus (though not, saith he, of Montanus) were sound men qui perpotuam abstinentiam praecipiunt ad destruenda & dejicienda opera creatoris, who commanded perpetual abstinence to the destroying and casting down the works of the Creator, de jejun: c. 15. And the like intimations of the opinion of heretics we meet frequently in the Fathers, who give their cautions against this, Non re i●iendis generibus ciborum quasi pollutis. August: de mor: Eccl: Cath: l. 1. c. 33. & escarum non naturas sed concupiscentias damnent. Prosper de vit: contempl. l. 2. c. 22. And many the like. And among the Papists no meaner person than Durand speaks much to this sense, that those old heretics did, (though the generality of the Papists seem not to approve or follow him) God, saith he, cursed the earth, and from thence it is that in fasting 'tis unlawful to eat any flesh that is upon the earth, beasts and birds, etc. Rat. divin. Off. l. 6. c. 7. But this by the way.  
Next then taking the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify only a show of piety, he cannot but wonder at my question [How abstinences can have so much as a show of piety in Will-worship, if Will-worship pass confestly for foolish and impious?] bidding me ask all inpreters, who render the words, a show of wisdom in superstition or affected religion, how this can be.  
But before I shall ask them, I must have some assurance from this Diatribist, that all interpreters do so render it, for otherwise my question will be lost in the air, and never bring me home any answer; But of this I am well enough advised, that all interpreters do not thus render it, I shall instance, as even now I did, in the learned Grotius, as valuable, I believe, as any that will be brought for the Diatribist's interpretation, and besides, any one asserter of mine interpretation (and certainly Grotius is one) confutes his assertion of all interpreters.  
However, unless I can be farther assured, that he or they whom the Diatribist takes for all, doth also take notice of, and render some answer to my question, what shall I gain by ask them? And if they do answer it, why would not the Diatribist be so kind as to recite it from them? But this I am sure he hath not done, by ask me again, Cannot a thing have ashow of wisdom or piety, which is confessedly foolish or impious, and if so, may it not be so in respect of the Will-worship in it?  
I answer, that if I take the question in the terms wherein it is proposed, it is no way of answering my question, but the diverting to a very distant matter, For when he asks, may it not be so in respect of the Will-worship in it? the plain importance of his words is, may it not be foolish or impious in respect of the Will-worship that is in it? not, may it not have a show of wisdom or piety in respect of the Will-worship? for it is visible that [be so] refers to [is foolish] and not to [have a show] And then there is a fair fallacy put upon the Reader, the terms of my question, and of the text, quite changed, and others substituted in stead of them, and then I confess that supposing Will-worship as ill, as the Diatribist would have it, a thing may be foolish or impious in respect of Will-worship.  
But let the question be fairly set, cannot a thing that is foolish and impious have a show of wisdom in respect of Will-worship? And then as I shall answer, it may: so I must add, that then that Will-worship must be taken in a good sense, for else that foolish thing could not have a show of wisdom or piety in Will-worship. If a fool have any show of wisdom in him, it must be sure not in respect of his folly, but of some particular or other, which is by him that speaks accounted wisdom, and that he must have in him either in reality or in appearance, or else how can he have any show of wisdom? If Satan have the show or appearance of an Angel of light, it must be in respect to something which he doth, or pretends to do, which is Angelical.  
As for the instances with which he prosecutes this, it must be a strange shortness of discourse, if he can think they evince his conclusion; He exemplifies in the Baalitical lancing, and the Popish penances, and supposing the former impious, and the latter not only ridiculous but heathenish, yet these, saith he, had a show of piety. But what if they had, was it ever denied or questioned by me, but that impious persons or actions might have a show of piety? for sure I always knew there were hypocrites in the world, but my question he knows was, how any thing can have a show of piety in respect of that very thing which is impious? This was the only question that belonged to the affair betwixt us, and certainly the Diatribist's instances are very remote from that, for the Baalites show of piety consisted not in their bloody lancing of themselves, nor the Papists in their as bloody penances, but either in the reality or appearance of that detestation of sin, and that zeal, which make them submit themselves to so much smart.  
It was very necessary then for him in the pursuit of this, when he again recites my question [But (saith the Doctor) can any thing be represented to me as having so much as a show of piety, in respect of lust or rage discernible in it?] to tell the Reader that this comparison is ill laid. For if this be well laid, then sure his setting of the question is foully out of the way. But why is it ill laid? is it not directly a way of trial, whether will-worship be set by the Apostle in an ill notion? For if it be, than somewhat else which is acknowledgedly ill (and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rage and lust, the two principles of sensuality, were the fittest I could think on of this sort, to instance in) being put in the stead of it, the Apostles words would still continue to have truth and congruity in them, viz. that such a thing hath a show of piety in it, in respect of lust or rage. This it seems was too gross for him to swallow, and therefore (and upon no other reason, but because it made the truth most palpable) the comparison, saith he, was ill laid.  
But 'tis yet more strange, if we consider his reason of excepting against this comparison, For rage, saith he, and lust are for kind confessedly wicked things. (And truly that was the reason why I instanced in them, to show that a thing cannot have a show of good in respect of that which is confestly bad, which I could not have showed in those instances, if they might have been good as well as bad) but worship, saith he, may be true or false. I shall then only ask, whether Will-worship may so too? for that, he knows, is the word we contend about.  
If it may not, but is always false, then still it is directly parallel to lust and rage, in this, wherein the comparison was made, those always ill, and this also: But if Will-worship may be true, as well as false, then as I acknowledge a thing may have a show of piety in respect of Will-worship, meaning the good or true Will-worship, and supposing S. Paul so to have meant, and not any false or impious will-worship, so by this one concession of the Diatribist after all this contention and scrupulosity and niceness, the whole question is yielded me, for it seems Will-worship may be true as well as false, and so good as well as bad, and here not confestly false or bad, quod erat demonstrandum.  
What now follows, showing that impious and false worship may have a show of wisdom and piety to natural men, is evidently impertinent to our debate or question, which consists only in this, whether that which hath a bare show of piety or wisdom, can have it in respect of that which is confestly impious and foolish; and therefore when he hath full scope, to put it a little more home to me, as he saith, and yet can do no more but ask, Whether zeal may not have a show of true zeal, and yet be nothing but rage and madness? it is still to as little purpose, equally beside the question; And so when he asks, Whether the Devil transforming himself into an Angel of light, must have something really of light or piety in him, or else cannot have so much as a show of piety? 'tis evident he may, without having any reality of piety in him, and yet it is as evident, that if he have that show of piety, in respect of humility or charity, or any thing else, that humility or charity, or whatsoever else, must be of the number of those things that are accounted good and pious, for otherwise his having the appearance or bare show of them would not conclude him to have the appearance of piety. The matter is evident enough, if he will please to open his eyes, I cannot have a show of piety in Will-worship unless Will-worship be a branch of piety, and so by proportion a show of Will-worship a show of piety.  
His conclusion of this copious answer is yet more observable (and according to his directions, I shall note it once for all) that the words are not, which things have a show of wisdom and Will-worship etc. for then, saith he, 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 Will-worship 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. All which I shall very easily grant, and as in the latter part I shall fully comply with him, that those doctrines of abstinences, Col. 2. were faulty, because though they had a show of Will-worship and humility, yet they had not the reality of those virtues in them, so from the former part of his words I have all reason of analogy to conclude, that Will-worship is taken in a good sense, by its being evidently joined with humility and self-denial, for those sure are good things also, as well as wisdom, and that all the fault was, that the doctrines of abstinences had only the appearance of those virtues not the truth or power of them. How inevitably this conclusion is founded on these very premises given me by the Diatribist, is so evident, that I hope I shall not need farther to enlarge to show it. By the same reason that Will-worship must have been concluded good, if it had been joined with wisdom, in this form [a show of wisdom and of Will-worship] it must certainly follow that Will-worship is good, because it is joined with humility in this form, [in Will-worship and humility] humility being as confestly good, as wisdom is supposed to be, and the fault of the abstinential doctrines still equal, that they had only the appearance, not reality of all these.  
Once more, the utmost force of all is yet reserved for the close of the conclusion, The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. saith he, do no more enforce us to take it in a good sense then when we say, Judas made a show of love to Christ in his traitorous kiss, and the Papists devotion in bowing to stocks and images. But I desire that he set the words of his example so, as may be exactly parallel to the words Col. 2. 23. (the least change may have an influence on the matter) and then it must be thus, 1. Judas had (not made) a show of love to Christ in his traitorous kiss, and the Papists have a show of devotion in bowing to stocks and images. And 2. in stead of triterous must be placed some word, which shall no more vary the kiss, than the addition of Will varyes the worship, (for that the uncommandedness of worship makes it traitorous, or so much as ill, must not be supposed here, where it is the only question.)  
Having premised this, I now answer to the example as it is by him set, that as the words in the Apostle were certainly true, so these words, as they are now ill set, are as undoubtedly false; for consider the kiss, with that so distinctive contrary adjunct, as a traitorous kiss, (which addition as it is necessary to make it ill, so it deprives it of all appearance of love) and then Judas had no show of love to Christ in this, viz. in his traitorous kiss. If indeed he had said, Judas had a show of love to Christ in kissing him, or saluting him friendly, than it had been true, and then the conclusion had been evident that a kiss or friendly salute is an act or indication of love, an hearty kiss of an hearty love, and a feigned kiss of a feigned love; or if the addition of traitorous kiss, had made no greater a change, than the addition of will or uncommandedness to worship, than again it had been true; But supposing the kiss to be a traitorous kiss, viz. a kiss given as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or watchword, whom (and when) the Soldiers should apprehend, then sure he had no show of love to Christ in that kiss. And so in like manner, if the proposition had been, The Papists have a show of devotion in bowing, it had been true because adoration or bowing is a species or indication of devotion, but because Idolatry is neither of these, and bowing to stocks and images is Idolatry, there can therefore be no truth in that proposition, set, as by the Diatribist it is set, and supposed to be delivered by any Orthodox pen (for such sure was the Apostles to his Colossians) but the direct contradictory will be true and clear to all that count bowing to stocks and images a sin, For to them the Papists have no show of devotion in bowing to stocks or images, no show of piety, but only of impiety in Idolatry.  
And thus, I hope, I have at length vindicated this 2d argument for the good sense of the word, from all the evasions and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and truly there have been good store of them, and I believe this Section his masterpiece of dexterity, and therefore I have so punctually and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insisted on it) from all the subtle refuges of this Diatribist.   

Sect. 11. The Greek Father's acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. An argument of goodness that 'tis pretended by hippocrates. Religion in a good sense. Will-worship not worse than false worship, not abominable. All devised worship is not Idolatry, doth not pretend to more wisdom then Gods. The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Translator, and the followers thereof. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the vulgar rendered decernitis. The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the good sense. The testimonies out of Ambrose, Theodoret, Salmeron, Estius, Augustine, Thomas, examined.  
MY third reason being taken from the Greek father's understanding of the place, who though they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of appearance, yet paraphrase Will-worship by words of good savour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pious, religious etc. The Diatribist begins with a triumph and ovation, First, saith he, this is well that the Greek Fathers agree with us in exposition of the first words, a show (not, as he, somewhat real) of wisdom, 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: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he seems to be religious, but is not so, Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pretending religion in worship. And is there any goodness in hypocrisy?  
Here truly it is not to be reprehended but cherished in the Diatribist, that he is so very much rejoiced to hear the news, that the Greek Fathers and he are of a mind, in any the least particular, I hope it will encourage and engage him to a more familiar conversation with them, and then I am persuaded no body will have reason to repent of it.  
All that I am to complain of at the present, is first that their interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a show, should be deemed an agreement with him, more than with me, who he knows have produced them, and never expressed any dislike to that interpretation. All the difference between us being but this, that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two renderings, rationem and speciem, I that desired to proceed on sure grounds, proposed them both, and, which soever should be adhered to, showed the necessity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken in a good sense. 'tis true indeed, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be there taken for ratio, the argument for the good sense would proceed most irresistibly, But supposing it with the Fathers to signify species, a bare show or appearance, yet the argument holds very firmly thus also, the Gnostick doctrines cannot have so much as a show of piety in Will-worship, unless Will-worship real be piety real, and the appearance of Will-worship a foundation of an appearance of piety. And this being the sense of the Fathers, which rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare show, this sure was fit to be confronted to the Diatribist's pretensions, as a third argument.  
And is it not now a strange way of answer to this argument, to ask, as he here doth, Can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worship of God, be taken in a good sense? I reply, by demanding what it is, of which the Fathers say, that it hath neither power nor truth? Sure the doctrines of abstinence, and not the Will-worship; And yet his answer proceeds as if they supposed it of the Will-worship, and without that, hath no appearance of force in it. And is not this a strange perverting of plain words? chrysostom saith, the false teacher seems to be pious, but is not, and Oecumenius, that he simulates piety, and from hence Mr. C. concludes that Will-worship is not taken in a good sense. But I pray is not piety taken in a good sense, even when the hypocrite simulates piety? Nay, would he pretend to it if it were not good? Doth a hypocrite pretend to that which is acknowledgedly ill? This were sure to appear what he is, and that is contrary to his being an hypocrite. The product is plain, Will-worship is rendered by piety, not by appearance of piety, & unless piety itself can be taken there in an ill sense, Will-worship must be taken in a good sense, Certainly I need add no more ('tis pity I should be required to say so much) of this matter.  
But on occasion of the interpreter of Clemens, who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in religione, from whence I thought I might conclude it that man's sense, that Will-worship signifies religion, and so that it was not taken in an ill sense, he is pleased to ask, [Why, Is not religion itself of various senses? The simple word signifies false religion, 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]  
What depth there is in this question will soon appear; For 1. What if both religio and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of various senses, and signify false religion as well as true, heathen, or Judaical, as well as Christian? Is there any appearance of reason to determine it to the former, in this place, or in that interpreters acception of it? If there be, than there is an account of the words being taken in an ill sense, without any influence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, man's will upon it; if there be not (as he is obliged to affirm there is not, saying p. 69 that the Apostle brands them as destructive, because they are but Will-worship, not because they are outdated or Judaical, much less then, because they are any more dangerous sort of false worship, such as was used among the heathens) then what matters it, what in other places it signify, whensoever the adjuncts or context so determine it, unless it do (or can be pretended to do) so here?  
This being premised, that which follows is yet more strange, that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying false religion as well as true) the composition makes it worse; worse than what? then false religion? This is fairly to resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God, is worse than false religion indefinitely, i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition; and the reason annexed is of the same temper, [adding the work of man's will is abominable to God.]  
Here indeed is a foundation of charge of Idolatry, or whatever is most abominable on this poor Church of ours, for the bare using of any most innocent ceremony. But this all the while incumbent on the Diatribist to prove, and as it will not be granted for ask, so it is not so nearly approaching toward truth, as to want any farther answer, than the reciting of it, I cannot yet be so uncharitable to Mr. C. as to imagine it his serious opinion that kneeling in prayer or thanksgiving to God, on purpose to express our lowly reverence to him, or bowing at the name of Jesus, in token that we believe him to be the eternal God, in opposition to the ancient or modern Arians and Socinians, is abominable to God, and worse than false religion.  
And though his following question confirms this to be his opinion [Do not all Idolaters pretend wisdom in their inventions, citing in the margin Psal: 106. 39 went a whoring with their own inventions] yet 'tis not to be believed, that he can in earnest thence conclude, Therefore all inventions of men are Idolatry, and worse than Idolatry; If he can, 'tis sufficient to reply, that though all Idolatry be invented and devised worship, yet all inventions of men are not Idolatry, though every beast be a living creature, yet every living creature is not a beast; And so that though Idolatrous Will-worship be abominable to God, yet all Will-worship is not Idolatrous.  
Once more he presseth this argument, Doth not, saith he, this pretence (of wisdom) make it more odious to God, as taking upon them to be wiser than he, and more devout than he requires?] But it may suffice once for all, that he that useth an uncommanded ceremony in the service of God, doth not take upon him to be wiser than God, but walking regularly in obedience to the divine rule, wheresoever there is any particularly given, acts according to reason and the more universal rules of Decency, etc. where God hath not particularly prescribed any thing. And so again in acts of uncommanded devotion; doing that voluntarily out of love to God which God requires not sub periculo animae, and so which is not extorted by fear, either of offending or suffering, this is again no elevating our own wisdom above Gods, but our making use of those advantages and those liberties which God in his wisdom chose to afford us, that there might be somewhat for us freely to exercise his graces upon, and so for him as freely to reward in us. And of this there is no fear, that it shall ever be counted any irregular acting, and having God's promise to be rewarded, it is safe from being odious or abominable before him.  
Thus I hope I have vindicated the good sense of the word as far as in my 3d. Reason I pretended from the Greek Father's concurrence with me.  
As for the Latins and later interpreters, to which the Diatribist now calls me, and asks me why I did not tell him, how they rendered the word? To this I answer, that as I have not commodity to examine all those interpreters in this matter, so I did not think myself obliged to do it, having never pretended that the notion which I give is universally received by all Expositors, I acknowledge, that all men have not rendered the word in a good sense, particularly that the vulgar Latin reads it Superstitio (though in what acception of that word I know not, most probably in an ill sense) but sure this with no more truth or analogy for so interpreting, then is for their interpreting the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by decernitis, v. 20. which is no less then to change subjection into command, undergoing a yoke, into imposing of it, one contrary into another.  
However from thence 'tis nothing strange that the ill sense should be transfused into those Expositors which follow and never depart from that Latin translation, neither examining the original word, nor the context, to reform that translation by it. This was the task which I then undertook, and having found the context to incline it to a good sense, and the Greek word to bear it very well, and the Greek Fathers to concur with me in their notion of it, I thought I might lawfully question the authority of the vulgar Latin, and those who had been lead by it, (and so we know are the Papists, and from them others also, who do not take notice who 'tis that leads them) and attempt that here which I saw ordinarily practised by all other sorts of men, the Learned Papists themselves (and, I doubt not, by this Diatribist, when he conceives himself to have reason for it) i. e. depart from their words and conduct, as in other so in this particular.  
In so doing I now see without any search, that I have such a concurrence as will secure it from any censure of singularity. Beside the Greek Fathers forementioned, the 
p. 69.  Diatribist tells me I have Bellarmine's consent (adding some other Papists also) and I hope his authority alone were considerable enough, if there were not also some others, to weigh in the balance with Salmeron and Estius, which are all the modern Expositors here cited by him.  
And among the Protestants, to Hugo Grotius, already cited, I now add Monsieur Daillé in his late tract de Jejuniis, written ex instituto against Bellarmine, and yet in this place of St Paul 
l. 1. c. 7.  contested between them, he expressly acknowledges with Bellarmine the very thing that I concluded, viz. that those false teachers had a threefold colour of wisdom, 1. In Will-worship, 2. In humility, 3. In austerity to the body, for which three things they admire these their doctrines of men; defining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cultum sponte & voluntariè assumtum nulla cogente Dei lege, a worship undertaken voluntarily and of their own accord without any law of God constraining them, and again that by the whole discourse of the Apostle it appears that they commended and set off their doctrines of abstinence by this, that voluntarily ex quadam zeli & sanctificationis abundantiâ susciperentur, they were voluntarily undertaken out of an abundance of zeal and holiness. And so in his opinion if abundance of zeal and holiness were taken in a good sense, Will-worship must be resolved to be so taken.  
And so this Exposition of that learned man, who will not be deemed partial to me against the Diatribist, may now deserve to be considered by him, as soon as the contrary of any modern Expositor produced, or, I believe, producible by him.  
For as to those ancient Latin Fathers, whom he hath already produced, they are but three, Ambrose, Hierom, and the vulgar Latin, and those three may be reduced also, and in fine will amount to little more than the one single vulgar Translator. This is generally supposed to be St Hierome (and if it be not, 'tis certainly somebody whom St Hierome followed, St Hieromes short notes on the Epistles being affixed to that translation) and so St Hieromes name is no addition to that, only served the Diatribists turn, as in a false muster, to bear two names to appear twice, and fill two spaces in his catalogue.  
And for the only Father now remaining, St Ambrose, if those Comments be his, which go under his name, they will bring no great prejudice to our pretensions, for by paraphrasing [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by simulatione religionis, all that can be concluded is, that those doctrines of abstinence had not any reality, but only a false guise of religion in them, and so it follows there, Hinc se sapientiae rationem habere putant, quia traditioni humanae nomen religionis applicant, & religio appellatur cum sit sacrilegium, Hence they think themselves to have some appearance of wisdom, because they apply the name of religion to humane tradition, and it is called religion, when it is sacrilege; And this I may easily grant, and consequently that the Will-worship here, and so likewise the humility, were not either of them truly such, and so offended in this, that they were not what they pretended to be, and would not have been criminous, if they had been really such; which still devolves all the fault on the doctrines and on the hypocrisy, not on the Will-worship, or Religion, whose name would never have been pretended to by hypocrites, if it had not been good. See §. 7. of this ch. n. 10.  
Mean while I guess not how Theodoret which is acknowledged to be a Greek Father, came to be ranked among the Latins, and a Latin interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited out of him; However I never pretended, that all either Greek or Latin, or particularly that he concurred with me in this sense, & therefore am not obliged to give any farther account of his interpretation, Only this I am sure of, that 'tis not the uncommandedness of the worships, that he finds fault with, but 1. Their teaching those for God's commands, which are their own; (That is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their introducing their own ordinances, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their unseasonable Judaical doctrine) and 2dly. Their bare show of piety and humility, without the truth of either (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) whereas by by his conclusion, it is most evident, that the abstinences without the doctrines would not have been deemed by him reprovable, and so not the bare uncommandedness of the worship, for thus we have it in the close, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For abstinences ought to be by counsel, not as from detestable, but as from the most delectable things. Which is the very thing, which all this while we have endeavoured to conclude from that place.  
After these his Latin Fathers, he hastens to later interpreters, and those are two, Salmeron and Estius, and those two are one again, the one taking from the other as the manner is, without any considerable difference. But to give his Testimonies their full weight, we will view them distinctly.  
Salmeron begins with observing, that whereas the Vulgar Latin reads, in Superstitione and humilitate, & non ad parcendum corpori, the Greek hath only three, words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which three, saith he, sunt tres colores ostendentes rationem & specimen sapientiae, are three colours showing a specimen (which by the way is more than speciem, or bare show, some real evidence) of that wisdom (to which those doctrines of abstinences pretended) And the first of these, saith he, signifies cultum spontaneum, sive voluntariam religionem, a spontaneous worship, or voluntary religion pro arbitrio cujusvis abstinendi a cibis, of abstaining from meats as every man shall think fit, and afterwards, illâ voce alludit ad voluntarias oblationes legis quae nedaboth dicuntur, Deut. 16. & Amos 5. By this word he alludes to the voluntary oblations of the Law, which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then I shall desire the Diatribist to consider, how fitly Salmeron was called out to give testimony against me, (he, and one more, in the name of all later interpreters) when it is evident from these words, that he saith the very same thing, which all this while I contend for, if I could have thought fit to have defended myself from singularity, by his Testimony.  
'tis true indeed he conceives the words to allude to v. 18. volens in humilitate & religione, and so goes along with Estius, and others in that mistake, which I had taken notice of in them, and that might have easily led him into farther mistake, if the evidence of the truth, or some other better guide had not rectified him; But as it is, I have no reason to complain of him, as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is now before us.  
Somewhat more he adds of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifying, saith he, the virtue of humility, is here used for a feigned humility, which is contrary to the Gospel, because by it the Judaizers Evangelio legem admiscebant, mixed the law with the Gospel, And as this is also perfectly concordant to my notions, so to this it is, that he brings the testimonies of Augustine and Thomas, and not for the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Diatribist citys them out of Estius.  
However to manifest my care of profiting by all his animadversions, I shall view those testimonies also. The one thing which Salmeron citys from both of them, is this that omnis ritus colendi Deum qui à Deo non est, nec à Spiritu sancto per Ecclesiam traditus, sed voluntate hominum inventus, superstitiosus est, every rite of worshipping God, that is not delivered from God, nor from the holy Ghost by the Church, but is invented by the will of man, is superstitious. Where it seems, that which is delivered by the Church, being by him supposed to be from the holy Ghost, doth in no degree fall under this censure, And then the Diatribist hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation.  
As for Estius his main endeavour in the interpretation of the verse, is to evince that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies speciem in genere, sive veram sive falsam, a species in general, whether true or false, which is very little for the Diatribists advantage, for granting it to signify species, if that should prove a true one, then that is perfectly destructive to his interests, for such a species of wisdom nothing could have in Will-worship, if Will-worship were supposed to be impious and foolish; And if it should prove a false species, and so a bare show of wisdom, yet is that very reconcileable with the good notion of Will-worship as hath oft been showed.  
What follows in him, is, saith he, secundum Augustinum & Thomam, according to Augustine and Thomas, that these abstinences have rationem sapientiae non verae, sed ejus quae sita est in superstitione & humilitate, quae falsa est sapientia, not true wisdom, but that which is placed in superstition and humility, which is false wisdom. But where Augustine or Thomas give him authority to pretend their accord with him, he citys not. In all reason this defect must be supplied by Salmeron, who cited in the margin, August: lib. de verâ rel: & lib. 2. the doctr. Christ. c. 25. and Thomas 2a. 2ae qu. 93. art. 1.  
What place in Augustine's book de vera relig. it is, to which he refers, we have no direction, and so are left to guess, that it is cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio in phantasmatibus nostris, Melius est enim qualecumque verum quam omne quicquid pro arbitrio fingi potest, Let not our religion be placed in our phantasms, for any thing which is true is better than whatsoever can be feigned at our own pleasure. And as to the truth of this position I give full consent, that all fictitious false worship is to be avoided, not only (as he contents himself to say) unfit to compare with true, so I no where undertake to be advocate for any false or fictitious, or fantastic religion. The commemorating the birth of Christ on the 25th of December, I hope, is not such, nor any Ceremony admitted into use in our Church.  
The other place out of the 2d de doctr. Christ. c. 55. stands thus; Having at the 20th Chapter defined Superstitiosum superstitious, to be whatsoever was instituted by men, for the making or worshipping of Idols, and that either belonging to the worshipping any Creature, or part of a Creature as God, or to consulting or making any pacts with Devils etc. and having fallen on the several sorts of divinations c. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. he begins his 25th ch. quibus ampu●atis atque eradicatis ab animo Christiano, deinceps videndae sunt institutiones hominum non superstitiosae, i. e. non cum daemonibus, sed cum ipsis hominibus institutae, the former being lopped off, and eradicated from a Christians mind, let us farther view such institutions of men as are not superstitious, i. e. are not made with Devils but with men themselves, And having added somewhat of such vain institutions (which sure no way concern the matter now in hand) he comes to those which are useful to humane society, and resolves that such are not to be avoided by a Christian, imò etiam, quantum satis est, intuenda, memoriaeque retinenda, but in a competent manner to be observed and retained, and this how little it belongs to the present purpose, to the proving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be here used in an ill sense, is already so apparent, that I need add no word more to the clearing of it.  
As for the place of Aquinas 2a. 2ae. qu. 93. art. 1. It is the very same, which long ago, we considered in the former part of this Tract, ch. 3. §. 3. n. 5. and to the view of it, there presented, I refer the reader, finding nothing more in that whole place art. 1. which was not there punctually considered, unless it be a citation out of the Gloss Col. 2. quòd superstitio est, quando traditioni humanae religionis nomen applicatur, that it is superstition when the name of religion is applied to the tradition of men, which words have nothing in them, which I am not ready to acknowledge, being sufficiently assured, that dogmatizing is a sin, and consequently that so good a name as religion ought not to be pretended for, or applied to it.  
What he adds by way of answer to my fourth reason, hath, I think, nothing of moment in it, but what hath oft been spoken to already, unless it be that he saith, he hath not observed any such difficulty or obscurity in that text Col: 2. 20. etc. but dares say, the Doctor's exposition makes the greatest obscurity that ever he met with: But of this there is no disputing, I must not expect that he shall acknowledge my interpretation to be clear, when he dislikes it, or discern the involutions or difficulties of that other which he hath espoused, when, if he did, he were obliged to forsake it.   

Sect. 12. The fifth reason vindicated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesychius corrected twice. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesychius' Glossary concordant to th' Scripture use. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 5. 4.  
TO my fifth reason taken from Hesychius' rendering it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary piety or worship, and the notion which he had of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition, to signify that which a man did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntarily, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own accord, agreeably to which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freewill-offerings are rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary performances, his answer is brief, that this is no advantage to my cause, for the words may both signify well-devised worship in an ill sense. And though in humane authors the derivatives and compounds of this word express the Freewillingnesse of the person, yet that will not help the Doctor who doth not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect to the willingness of the person in a commanded worship of God, but voluntary worship, i. e. worship not commanded by God, but offered to him by the free will of man.  
To this I reply, 1. that I willingly confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as capable of an ill sense, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. that when the worship is forbidden or false, then being ill, the voluntariness of it can infuse no goodness into it, as when it is of itself good, the uncommandedness cannot make it ill.  
And therefore 2dly this was not it on which I laid the weight (only I thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not been so likely to hear ill with gainsayers, as this other which I saw was fallen under great prejudice with some) but rather that which followed of the other compounds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signify no more but doing somewhat voluntarily, or of their own accord, without any necessity to do it.  
3dly. Then I say that acknowledging it my notion of the word to signify worship not commanded by God, the authority of Hesychius and the other Greek Glossaries which concur with, or follow him, is clear and home to confirm that to be the meaning of it.  
If that which is said already be not sufficient to lay the parallel directly betwixt Will-worship and voluntary oblations, or performances of things not commanded, then add 1. from Hesychius again, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, voluntary, proceeding from his own will, and that sure is distant enough from the will or command of another. The words in Hesychius are certainly false printed (as much of that book is) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It must questionless thus be mended, either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or else in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially, for so Suidas fetcheth that word out of approved authors; and which way soever it is, the sense is the same, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that doth any thing from his own, not another's will or command, whereas the word to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary in performing commands, is by him set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for so those two words must be read together (and not severed, as they now are in the vulgar copy) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as immediately after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
So again of the two words formerly cited by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the former certainly signifies the freeness of the matter, not of the person, one that is willingly deaf or disobedient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which sure cannot be fancied a doing that freely or willingly which is commanded, for no man is commanded to be disobedient, and in like manner the latter is rendered by Suidas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that is made such by himself, and not commanded by the city, adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, setting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, voluntary, to commanded by another, and Phavorinus repeats the very same words, only with the change of the Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adding also (as seldom he omits to do) what Hesychyus had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same may appear again by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that chooseth ill voluntarily, i. e. he which of his own accord chooseth the evil, both in Phavorinus and Suidas, where sure that which he chooseth voluntarily, is not first commanded by God, being supposed to be evil. And so still these compositions from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify all of them in perfect accord with my notion of Will-worship, i. e. a performance voluntarily taken up, without any command of God.  
And indeed 'tis a little strange that this Diatribist, who takes it here in an ill sense, and places the ill in this, that it is an uncommanded worship, should yet here dispute against this signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for voluntary worship, uncommanded by God, and fancy that I pretend no more but the free-willingness of the person in a commanded worship of God.  
What he adds in the end of that 15th §. that though the word in other authors be taken for voluntary worship, and be but once used in Scripture, yet the Spirit of God useth words in a sense clearly different from other authors, instancing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 5. 4. taken for a vice, which in Aristotle is taken for a virtue,] will soon receive answer, For 1. Hesychius being the author now peculiarly under consideration, and his Glosses having a special propriety to the explicating of words in Scripture, what is said by him, is not so much the sense of other authors, as of the Scripture itself, and so cannot reasonably be thought distant from it.  
2dly. Though some words are taken in the Scripture in a sense different from other authors, this is not applicable to all words of Scripture, some are used in ordinary vulgar senses, and by much the greater part of words there, and from thence to conclude of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it is taken in a different sense, is to conclude and syllogise from particulars, which is against all Laws of Logic.  
3dly. Whensoever a word in any place of Scripture is affirmed to be used in such a different sense, that must be concluded either by the circumstances of the text, which so enforce it, or else by comparing it with other places of Scripture, where that sense is necessary; as when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is concluded to be a vice, Eph. 5. 4. 'tis manifest by the context it must do so, for to it is immediately annexed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are (not only not convenient, but, as that phrase denotes) very inconvenient, nay as the companions of it there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enforce, filthy, noisome, unsavoury, so as folly oft signifies uncleanness, and so this is a visible reason also, why the word is taken in an ill sense, when Aristotle, meaning only cleanly, not beastly jesting, takes it in a good sense: But of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this no way appears in this one place where 'tis used, but on the contrary, the society in which 'tis found, humility and self-denial or austerity determine it to be the good sense, as certainly, as the company of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determine that to an ill. And so much for my 5t Reason.   

Sect. 13. Mr. C. his distinction of voluntary. Spontaneous. A work of love. The Testimony of Socrates. Worship true or false. Nothing unlawful which is not forbidden. Voluntaryness no way forbidden. The second Commandment.  
TO my last reason [because things done in the service of God are not therefore ill because spontaneous, but on the contrary, that when out of a pious affection a man shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept, this action of his is so much more commendable and acceptable to God,] he thinks it sufficient to distinguish of voluntary either as it denotes the manner or the efficient cause of worship; in the first respect that is voluntary, saith he, which yet is necessary, viz. commanded by God, in the second, that only which is done by the will of man contradistinguisht to the will of God.  
But this distinction is very far from answering my reason. For of the second, it is, he knows, that I understand the word, and that I might prevent all want of this or the like distinction, I speak most plainly, using the word Spontaneous, not voluntary, on purpose to denote that which was done by man's will on his own accord, without any command of Gods; for so sure Spontaneous signifies (however the Diatribist here confounds it with voluntary, and so involves, in stead of extricating, mixes, when he went to distinguish) that which is suâ sponte from a man's own incitation, not from any external impellent, whether command or punishment attending it, for this indeed being done thus freely, is perfectly a work of love, and that renders it so extremely grateful, and rewardable by God. I shall give you the description of it in the words of 
Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 22.  Socrates speaking of Ecclesiastical rites; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Seeing no man can show any written command for this, it is manifest that the Apostles left this to every man's judgement and will, that every man might do good, neither by fear nor of necessity.  
When he adds, that in worship devised by man the will bears all the blame, and then the more voluntary; the more abominable] I answer, that worship is either false or true, bad or good, Heathen or Christian, His rule is perfectly true in unlawful wicked worship, all the blame thereof lies on the will of man, but it can have no place, where the worship is lawful, for then no blame is due at all, but the more free it is, 'tis so much the more commendable. Now it is of lawful and Christian worship that we here speak, as he knows well enough, or else it were not imaginable we could take it in a good sense, and of this he must needs understand us also; or else he could not make all the blame of it in man's will or devising, as he doth.  
And that a worship in itself, and materially lawful, i. e. whilst it is abstracted from the consideration of Gods commanding it, or not, should by not being commanded by God, become unlawful, this is to confound things most distant, forbidding and not forbidding; For the Law and Will of God being the rule, in agreement with, or opposition to which, lawful and unlawful consists, it is as impossible that any thing should be unlawful in respect of God's Law, which is not forbidden by it, as that any thing should be lawful which is forbidden.  
When therefore he proceeds, affirming (but offering no proof) that the voluntariness of an action is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or irregularity of it, first, this is a begging the question; 2. 'Tis set in such terms, that it hath not the least appearance of truth in it, for how can the voluntariness be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or irregularity, unless the Law forbid voluntariness, which certainly it no way doth, as was formerly evidenced from hence, because there is no universal negative command in Scripture, prohibiting all acts and degrees of acts, beside what are in particular commanded.  
That there is no such, sufficiently appear, by the one instance, which here he thinks fit to mention, that of the 2d Commandment, which, saith he, forbids all things, i. e. all worship and all degrees of that worship, besides what are particularly commanded. Which though it be as far from all appearance of truth as any thing affirmable by any (for what word is there in that Commandment, which can sound that way? Certainly none, unless every ceremony devised by man and every degree whether of charity or devotion, which is not particularly under precept, be presently metamorphosed into a graven image) hath not yet any the least proof to back it, and so still is the meanest begging of the main question imaginable. And so having more largely spoken of this before, this is sufficient also to be said here in the vindication of my last reason.   

Sect. 14. The first occasion of mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ill. The vulgar translator and Mr. Calvin. The Diatribists three exceptions to this showed to be of no force. Will-worship distant from Superstition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only in a good sense among Christians. Three mistakes of the Diatribist. All uncommanded is not forbidden.  
HIS next post or Stage is made up of an examination of those things to which I conceived the mistake and abuse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imputable. The first of which I assigned to be the vulgar translations rendering it Superstitio, that being most probably S. Hieroms, and his words being found agreeable to it in some places, and from thence Mr. Calvin hath affirmed it, Superstitio Graecis dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
That this was fit to be insisted on as a first occasion of the mistake, will be evident enough to any, who considers how ordinary it is for the Romanists on one side without farther inquiry or consideration to follow the vulgar translation, and for the reformed on the other to follow the steps of Mr. Calvin, and not always to examine his grounds of affirming, which certainly were very far from solid in this matter, it being evident to all that know any thing of words, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek for Superstition, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nay that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but once used in Scripture, and not found in any author, but such as may be resolved to have used it from thence, Mr. calvin's words, that Superstitio is called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot probably signify any more than that the Greek word in that one place is by the vulgar translator rendered Superstitio. And then this is an evidence of that which there I affirmed, that the occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in in an ill sense (which I must be allowed to deem a mistake) is the vulgar translators rendering it Superstitio.  
Now to this, three things are here objected, though not to the main of the observation (for no word is replied to that) yet to the mention of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. First that a man may say as much for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself as the Doctor saith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and bring the Doctor for his voucher who saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes is taken in a good sense.  
But I reply 1. that the Doctor never saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in a good sense among Christians, who sure never allowed the worship of Daemons, but only among heathens, who do allow it. 2. That if it were sometimes taken in good sense, yet that were not sufficient to conclude that it were all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all good things are not the same, no nor all ill, and therefore in whatsoever sense the words are taken, whether both in good or both in ill, the one in good, the other in ill sense, yet still the nature and importance of the words is distant, & so ought not to have been confounded either by the vulgar translator or by Mr. Calvin, and being so unduly confounded, the Diatribist cannot from thence raise any more solid argument for the ill sense of the one, than I can (which I pretend not to do) for the good sense of the other.  
2dly He objects, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Doctor knows, is taken also sometimes in an ill sense, as well as a good, why then, saith he, may they not both equally signify superstition? especially when applied to false or men-devised worship. I answer, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when spoken of Christians is never taken in an ill sense, unless by virtue of some Epithet joined with it, which itself is ill, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. James, vain religion, and then also 'tis the vanity which hath the ill sense, not the religion. And again that vain or ill religion, is not superstition neither, but an unagreeablenesse of the Professors practice to his religion. Now he knows it is of Christians that now we speak, and so there could be no place for this exception, nor for any thing to be founded in it, nor plea from hence that either the simple or the compound should be rendered superstition; As for the men devised worship that that should be synonymous with false, that is the old artifice of begging the question, in stead of saying aught for the gaining of it.  
His last exception is, that 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, i. e. Will-devised worship.] Here is a fair proportion of mistakes, without any tender of proof for any, no less than three in these so few words.  
First, he begins with a presumption that Superstition and Will-worship are all one, and that he knows is now the one thing denied by him, with whom he is disputing, and he cannot be ignorant, how illogical an argument that is, we have oft minded him of that fallacy.  
Secondly, he affirms that either of these is more general than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas 1. Superstitio being superstitum cultus, is directly all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is daemonum cultus, the Superstites and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same in several languages, and the other notion of Superstition (that in Aquinas for prohibited or illegitime worship) that is but a branch of the former, arising by analogy with it, and is not any opposite Species to it; and for Will-worship, if that be more general than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that very thing will prove it 1. not to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a substance, which is the more general, is not all one with a body, which is a Species of substance; The truth is that the generical Will-worship, as that comprehends all worship uncommanded by God, hath several Species under it, Jewish out-dated, and so now uncommanded worship, heathenish forbidden, and so uncommanded worship, and finally Christian acceptable, yet not commanded acts, or circumstances, or degrees of worship; And as the genus is not all one with any one Species, so Will-worship in general is not any one of these, but all of them together. And 2. It implies the word to be capable of a good as well as of an ill sense, and so indeed it is, being taken in a latitude, Will-worship, or as he will style it, men devised or Will devised worship, may be of two sorts, (as the generical word Worship, may) either true, or false, heathen or Christian, and as the one is ill, so the other is certainly good.  
But than what is that to the Will-worship in this text, which is not the generical, as that is common to good and bad, but that which is in the Diatribists understanding a wicked and false, and in mine a good and a Christian Will-worship, and which soever of the two it is, it is certainly not both, and so still but a Species of the generical Will-worship, and so not the genus itself.  
Lastly, when he saith, all false worship is superstitious, and the rather because it is spontaneous, this is a strange involution again; For the whole truth of that proposition [All false worship is Superstition] consisting in this, that all worship of false gods, or forbidden worship of the true God, is wont to be comprised under that name, the former according to the literal sense of the word Superstitum cultus, the latter as reducible, or by analogy agreeable to that, it is very unreasonable to superstruct upon this, that that false worship is the rather superstitious because it is spontaneous, It being certain, that if it offend not some other way then by being spontaneous, i. e. if it be not in respect of the matter of it, false worship and so forbidden, it is not superstition at all, and if it be false worship, in itself forbidden, then sure it is more than spontaneous, for so must all be that is actually forbidden. So that there is not the least degree of appearance of truth in that last affirmation.  
That which is indeed false worship is more than spontaneous (the uncommandedness of it is precedent and inferior in order of nature, to its being forbidden, and its being forbidden is an addition to its not being commanded) the falseness consists in its being devised by man's will, not simply, but in opposition to Gods, i. e. when 'tis forbidden, and it would not otherwise be false worship, if it were not forbidden either directly or by analogy with somewhat which is directly forbidden, and what is forbidden is more than not commanded, and so more than spontaneous, and so the ill of it cannot be increased by being spontaneous, and so it is not the rather superstition (or any other kind of evil) for being spontaneous.  
On the other side, that worship which is supposed not to be forbidden, is consequently thereto, to be resolved not to be false, and if it be not false, it cannot be Superstition (for such only is false worship) and if so, then again the voluntariness or Spontaneity of it cannot make it more false or more Superstition, then before it was, because it was neither false nor Superstition before, and the bare uncommandedness cannot render it either, Gods not commanding implying his permission, and so a liberty allowed by God, and that is so far from being all one with prohibited, that it is in effect the very contradictory to it, this being permitted by God, whereas all that is prohibited is not permitted. And so here is a competent number of infirmities in very few words.  
And yet there is still one behind, the great impertinency of this, and of the two former answers to the point in hand, the occasions, to which it is imputable that Will-worship came to be taken among many in an ill sense, which without question (at least without any word of exception from this Diatribists three branches of this 18th §.) is the vulgars' rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitio, and Mr. Calvin's following the vulgar.   

Sect. 15. The second occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an ill sense vindicated. The design of the Treatise of Will-worship, only for ceremonies, not for new kinds of worship. Whether all ceremonies be forbidden, which are not commanded. The various reading of Philostorgius. Sitting at the Gospel forbidden. Chrysostom's Testimony. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ecclesiastical Canon. pilpeoppunza Will-worship.  
THe second cause of mistaking this word I had set down at large, §. 19 to be the reflection on the Judaical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where, in the building of, and officiating in the Temple, all was to be done according to the pattern in the mount, from which some may have made a shift to conclude, that so it must be in the Christian Church, no rite, no circumstance, no degree of worship to be used there but what hath Christ's example or precept to authorise it. To this he replies, 1. That I much mistake the question, for it is not about a rite or circumstance or degree of worship commanded, but of the worship itself, and herein Christians are equal with the Jews, we must not vary from the prescription on the mount in the 2d Commandment to constitute any part of worship, but what we have the authority of Christ for in the New Testament, adding the ground, for this, both the 2d Commandment, and this text Col. 2. to justify that assertion.  
To this I hasten this brief reply, 1. That this is not, in any word, to the point now in hand, the occasion of taking Will-worship in an ill sense, and 'tis evident that though all were true which here is said, that I mistook the question, and that no part of worship may lawfully be set up among Christians without the example or precept of Christ, yet this of the Jewish obligation to do all according to the pattern in the mount, may be occasion to give men prejudices to all that is not under particular command, or according to pattern of Christ's, and his Apostles, which was all I assumed in that Section.  
But then 2dly. 'Tis most certain, that I do not mistake the question, nor can I mistake it (who had the setting it myself) unless I first set it one way, and then handle it another, And this certainly I do not. For the very design of that Treatise was to inquire, whether the observation of ceremonies used and prescribed in our Church of England were criminous, only upon this account, because they were not commanded by God; And in this I was then sure that I had adversaries enough, who concluded it so, upon this one way of probation, because all Will-worship was criminous, and the use and imposition of all uncommanded ceremonies were Will-worship.  
And if this Diatribist be not in the number of those adversaries, then hath he done himself and me and the reader very great injury, in disputing against that conclusion which he doth not oppose, then hath he most prodigally misspent and lavished out all his pains, in confuting (or exercising himself upon) this tract, of which this was the only design, not to plead for any new kind or parts of worship, but to justify the use of uncommanded ceremonies and circumstances, and such are days of worship, and to show that being unforbidden as well as uncommanded, they were therefore lawful and free to be used by Christian people or prescribed by Christian Magistrates. And if he hath nothing to resist in this, then why should he delight in this impertinent severity, arreign and triumph over a poor innocent Tract, that never thought to provoke any, which allowed the use and observance of uncommanded rites, and days of worship, never attempted in the least to bring any new part or kind of worship into the Church? Upon this, and other visible reasons, it will sure be needless here to examine again his two grounds, which we have formerly been so oft acquainted with, the 2d Commandment and Col. 2. 23. It was no small infirmity of discourse in this place to mention them.  
The 2d part of his reply, is, that in worship that is condemned which is not commanded] But 1. What is that again to the point in hand, that particular occasion of taking Will-worship in an ill sense? 2. I shall demand, is that proposition universally true, so as to extend to every ceremony in worship? If it be, than it seems, I mistook not the question (as very lately I was told) nor my adversary neither) this Diatribist being directly contrary to me herein, if he thus affirm, that in the worship of God every ceremony is forbidden which is not commanded.  
To the place in Photius' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Philostorgius, which I proposed and explained, he acknowledges he hath little to say, yet somewhat he is willing to note for his own advantage, viz. that I seem to make it a fault to sit at the reading of the Gospel, which the Ecclesiastical Canons did not command, and yet make it no fault to add a Will-worship of a man's own which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the divine law doth forbid.  
To this I answer, that the Diatribist ought in all reason to have marked, what there I set visible before his eyes, and then he could not possibly have mentioned this. For 'tis evident in that place, 1. That I had taken notice of the reading of the Manuscript in the Oxford Public Library, which hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Gotofred's Printed Copy, and 2. That as this latter reading imported it a fault to do that which the Canons commanded not (for which very cause I examined, and then saw reason to reject that reading) so the former and right reading, to which only I adhered, implied no more than this, that it was a fault to act contrary to Canon, to do many things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Ecclesiastical Canon did not admit or permit, or which was not in use with the Church of God, but the contrary, viz. that of standing up at the Gospel.  
If there need proof of this, the plain words of 
Edit. Savil. Tom. 6. p. 975.  chrysostom (or whosoever was the Author of the Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) will be sufficient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so it must be read, as appears, p. 974. l. 20. where we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is now Printed) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When the Deacon is about to open the Gospel (that Chariot drawn with four horses) we all look very earnestly upon him and are still, and when he begins to read (and so to run his race in that Chariot) presently we stand up and use this acclamation, Glory be to thee, O Lord.  
Certainly the Diatribist never expected that his Exercitations should be examined by any, or but compared with the plain words of the Treatise to which they related, when he thought fit to observe this.  
He is pleased also to retain that rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Law, which he must needs discern to have been there cleared by me to signify not the Law or word of God, but the Canons or unwritten customs of the Church, as there appeared by Nicephorus reciting that place of Philostorgius, and reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by many other evidences from Epiphanius and Athanasius and Pseudo-Clement, and Nicephori Constantinop: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superadded to the former store, in the Annotation on Col. 2. published since that Treatise. To all which I now add Leo, who having mentioned Divinarum Reverentia Sanctionum, the reverence of divine sanctions, soon explains his meaning first by quod publicâ lege 
* Ser. 3. de jejun. 7. mens.  celebratur, then by quod universa Ecclesia suscipit, that which was observed by public Law, that which the universal Church received.  
Another parallel mistake also I there mentioned in our Anglican Counsels, Can. 60. Sub Edgaro, where pilpoppunza is translated ficta ad libitum adorationes, but should be rendered fontis adoratio, not Will-worship but Well-worship, for which I refer the Reader to the former place in the Annotations.   

Sect. 16.  
The third occasion of the mistake cleared. Worship of Angels forbidden, not only not commanded. The reviving Judaical worship not called Will-worship, Col. 2. 23. Maimonides' words wrested to a distant sense by the Diatribist. Original of Angel-worship. Vain worships. Clemens confounding of Col. 2. 18. with 23. Worship of Angels etc. a forbidden Will-worship. The imposing of virginity and abstinences, as from God, the only crime, found fault with by S. Paul and the ancient Catholics. Alcibiabes his using, and remission of austerity. The like of Spiridion and Marcianus. Cyrill of meats. 1 Tim. 5. 23. explicated.  
A Third occasion of the mistaken ill notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I had taken notice of to be the confounding of two verses very distant, the 18th and 23d of that 2d Chap. to the Colos. the voluntary humility and worshipping of the Angels in the one, and the show of wisdom in Will-worship and humility in the other. To which end I at large cleared the difference between those two phrases. To this he replies, that 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 an old out-dated worship.  
To this I answer, 1. that the worship v. 18. being expressly the worship of Angels, that sure is much more than Will-worship in the Diatribists notion hitherto expressed of it, and therefore 'tis strange he should now labour to persuade us they are all one, or easily reconciled. Will-worship, as he hath hitherto defined it, is bare uncommanded, will-devised, or men-devised worship, and that he hath still pronounced unlawful upon that one account, because not commanded. But can he think the worship of Angels to be such? Is not that distinctly forbidden in the first Commandment? Certainly it is; And if it be, hath it no other guilt by being so forbidden, above that which is only not commanded? 2 The Will-worship v. 23. is not truly affirmed to be the reviving old out-dated worship, For 1. the abstinences from marriage there spoken of, as well as those from meats, had never been commanded among the Jews. 2. 'tis not there affirmed of one or other abstinence, that it was Will-worship, Only those doctrines of abstinences of both sorts are said to have a show of wisdom in respect of the Will-worship discernible in them, and so likewise they are said to have in respect of the self-denial, and the worship of Angels in respect of the humility, that either is, or is pretended in them. And yet I hope it will not be said that humility or self-denial is the reviving of Judaisme.  
But however some advantage he resolves to get by that §. and having no other means to acquire it, he will have it out of some words which I had cited out of Maimonides, the words are these, that the greatest part of Idolatry came into the world, existimando hanc varietatem esse Dei voluntatem, by the opinion that God was honoured by the worship of his Angels or officers, and that it was his will to have men exercised in this variety of worship. From hence the Diatribist subsumes, 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.  
Here I must demand what he means by vain worships? doth he mean bare will-devised, uncommanded worships, which have in his opinion no other crime in them, but their uncommandedness? If so, then hath he much misapplied Maimonides' words, as must be visible to him, those clearly belonging to the worship of Angels (and others beside the one God) which all men are strictly forbidden to worship. And then what a confusion of things most distant, what an injustice is this?  
But if by vain he designed false forbidden worships, such as are by him fitly joined with superstition, and such as the worship of Angels was, then indeed he knows, or must in charity believe, that 'tis as much mine interest and inclination, as his, to fasten an ill character upon them, and to believe as much of the danger and criminousnesse of affirming them acceptable to God, as Maimonides could teach, or the Diatribist wish me to believe. I shall not fail therefore, I hope, to obey his admonition, if it be really such, and be abundantly cautious neither to justify nor imitate, what I so much dislike and abhor in them that are guilty of it.  
What he next adds of Clemens Alexandrinus confounding those two the 18. and 23. verses, was by me produced and willingly confessed, and made an evidence of the point there in hand, that some have (though without all reason) confounded them, and it is not imaginable how this which so evidently proved what I brought it to prove (evidencing the occasion of the mistake) should be so speedily mentioned to the disproving of it, or be farther argumentative against me, than I had before acknowledged by producing it: For sure the Diatribist cannot pretend that Clemens his reading was the true, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he can, all our copies of the New Testament will abundantly confute him. And then it is no very good indication of the truth of his cause, which is fain to catch hold on such supports as this, which is acknowledged a mistake in him, from whom it is produced, and so in all reason will cause mistake to any that borrows it from him.  
But the Diatribist enlarges in two long Sections more to enervate what I had said to show the difference betwixt those two verses, And I need make no farther reply to them, then to refer the reader to the two parts of the observation (§. 22. and 23. of the Tract of Will-worship) to which his answers are applied, the second of them clearly answering all that he hath objected to the first (if he would but have had patience to have looked so much forward) and as clearly preventing what he hath said to the second.  
The short of it is, that the worship of Angels being not only not commanded but forbidden by God, the voluntary worshipping of them is acknowledged by me to be a fault, but that resulting from the unlawfulness of the matter, which is under interdict in the first Commandment of the Decalogue, not from the voluntariness or uncommandedness of it. And the same I shall not doubt to yield of the abstinences from meats and marriages; Christ hath given perfect liberty for the using of both, and they that dogmatise and impose either or both those abstinences on Christians as from God, are false teachers, and so that is their fault in imposing, and the like in those who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject themselves to those ordinances; And yet for all this a spontaneous abstaining from meats, at some time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for exercise, not for detestation (in a religious fast, not out of opinion of the unlawfulness of meats) being in itself perfectly lawful, and so likewise celibacy or virginity in him that can receive it, there is no pretence from the uncommandedness of either, or both of these, that they should be deemed culpable, or made parallel to that other sort of uncommanded worship, where the matter is under interdict, the worship of Angels or imposing of judaical abstinences.  
The matter is clear to any that shall but observe S. Paul's doctrine in several places, and the arguings of the Catholics against the Montanists. S. Paul, who resolves marriage to be honourable among all, and so brands them for heretics who forbid to marry, doth yet not only allow but recommend virginity; and so for meats, he professeth all to be lawful to all, and that no question is to be made for conscience sake, and accordingly censures the Gnostics that they commanded to abstain from meats, and yet the same Apostle was himself frequent in fastings, and certainly had not the least dislike to those performances.  
So in like manner the Catholics or orthodox Christians of the Primitive Church, which objected it as a fault to the Montanists, that they imposed fasting, and made it necessary (as may appear by the character of Montanus given by Apollonius in 
Eccl. hist. l 5. 6. 18.  Eusebius, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that required and exacted fastings as by the law of the Paraclete, for so he styled himself, and the same is evident by Tertullian in his Tract, De jejuniis, when being turned Montanist he pleads their cause against the Orthodox under the name of Psychici) and which anathematised the Marcionites and Encratites &c: for deeming meats unlawful, do yet every where commend and press the use of fasting, as hath formerly been showed in part, and as it is known to all that have but looked into their writings.  
The passage of the 
Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3.  Epistle of the Christians of Lions and Vienna to the asiatics concerning Alcibiades, is remarkable, he had lived, say they, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very austerely, using nothing but bread and water, and when he was by the persecutors cast in prison, he attempted to continue this strict diet, but Attalus, who was in prison, and had once been carried out into the amphitheatre, advised him to leave it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say they, having received a Revelation, that he should not do well not to use the creatures of God, adding that he would by that means, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, leave an example of scandal, of snare, of stumbling to others, whereupon say they, he eat freely and gave God thanks. Here it seems his former course of austerity and severest abstinence was no way disliked (and had long been practised by that Holy Martyr) only at this time it was thought not to be so fit to be continued, whether in respect of the combat which he was now to undergo, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a combat in the amphitheatre, and if he macerated himself too much he might not be so fit for so weighty and difficult an undertaking, and others also if they should follow his example might weaken themselves overmuch, and so be ensnared by that means) or in some other respect, wherein his abstinence might by the example be hurtful to others. And upon these considerations he intermitted it; an example both of the practice of the severest abstinences, and of the free use of meats according to the doctrine of Christian liberty.  
The same is yet more visible in the known passage of 
Sozomen. l. 1. c. 11.  Spiridion, one of the Bishops that sat in the Council of Nice, who though with his family he observed Lent most severely, yet on occasion of a weary guest made no doubt to break his customary rules, and his guest being more scrupulous than he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saying he was a Christian, Spiridion replied, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was the rather not to scruple, because he was a Christian, the Scripture itself affirming that all things are pure to the pure. And the same we have in the passage of Marcianus to Avitus, in 
Tom. 3. p. 791.  The doret, giving his reason for the breaking his ascetic Laws of fasting, that charity was more honourable than fasting, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the former being a work of Gods prescribing, the latter of our own freedom.  
The words of cyril of Jerusalem Cat. 4. may conclude this matter. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Many offend in this matter concerning meats, some eat indifferently all kind of meats, that which is offered to Idols etc. others abstain, and condemn all that eat, and so the soul is diversely polluted in this matter of meats, by not knowing the profitable causes of eating and not eating, when we fast we abstain from flesh and wine, not hating them as abominations, but expecting our reward, that contemning sensible delights we may enjoy the spiritual and intellectual Table, and that now sowing in tears we may reap in joy in the world to come. Despise not therefore those that eat, and partake, because of the weakness of their bodies, neither find fault with (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Barocian MS. reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) those that use a little wine for their stomach, and frequent infirmities, neither condemn them as sinners (the Barocian MS. adding to the Printed Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) nor hate flesh as strange (or unfit for a Christian) for of such the Apostle took especial notice, saying, they forbid to marry and abstain from meats, from such keep thyself, and abstain not from meats as detestable things, if thou dost thou hast no reward, but supposing them good, omit to make use of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Barocian Copy reads) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the intellectual better things which are set before thee, or which thou hopest to receive.  
Where it is evident how fasting and abstinences being freely and spontaneously used, and not as necessary, or the contrary unlawful, but perfectly spontaneous and uncommanded abstinences, are yet so far from being sinful (if they be not joined with condemning of others which eat) that they are highly rewardable by God. Nothing could be said more dilucidly and fully to this whole matter.  
This place of Cyrils will by the way give us a fuller understanding of that exhortation of S. Paul to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5. 23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine etc.] then formerly I had taken notice of in the Annotation on that place, in relation to the words precedent there, Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither partake of other men's sins, keep thyself pure, drink no longer water etc. Thus, those that by the Gnostics infusions and false doctrines, c. 4. 1, 2, 3. have been seduced into error and by that means fallen under thy censures, are not to be over favourably used, nor too speedily absolved, and then (on that occasion, as in a parenthesis) be sure thou fall not thy self into their snares, those errors, or faults consequent thereto, which thou art to censure in others; And these errors being specially two, the commanding to abstain, from marriage and from meats, for the former of them, be sure, that as thou abstainest from marriage, so thou preserve thyself perfectly pure from all the Gnostick pollutions consequent to their doctrines of hating marriage, (that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and for the latter, though thou usest austerities and fastings, which may be useful to virginal Chastity, yet do not this to the hurting of thy body, but in consideration of thy infirm habit of body, thy frequent indispositions, give thyself the use of lawful liberties, take wine sometimes in a moderate proportion, & keep not thyself so strictly to water-drinking, as persons of austerity use to do.  
All this (and much more might be added of the same nature) makes it most evident, that uncommanded performances (such sure were virginity or fasting) had no ill character fastened on them by those same Orthodox Fathers, who yet would not endure to have them imposed on Christians, as from God, but brand all such, as attempt it, for false teachers.   

Sect. 17. The last occasion of the ill sense. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius. Of the Pharisees appellation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dogmatizing and discriminating. Epiphanius' words cleared. Wherein their hypocrisy consisted. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Mac. 2. 42. Asidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the fault.  
THe last occasion of the ill sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I took notice of, was Epiphanius' mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the denotation of the Pharisees name, in respect of the voluntary performances wherein they pretended to exceed other Jews. And I leave the Reader to view in that place, §. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. what I thought fit to note on that word, which when he hath done, I shall have some confidence, that he will need no farther reply of mine to demonstrate the invalidity of all this Diatribist's exceptions against those Sections.  
For there he will find, 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as that may denote the superfluity of either noxious, or ridiculous, or but (for number) many and so burdenous ceremonies, is not pleaded for by me, and that is answer to his 24th §.  
2dly. That what was unblamable in the Pharisees was not their bare using of some lawful, indifferent, or else good, and commendable things, not commanded by God, but their teaching such for doctrines, and laying them as burdens on others, and what was consequent to this, their discriminating themselves proudly and fastidiously from other men, upon this account, and that prevents his 25t §.  
3dly. That I no way plead for the Pharisees, but affirm them generally to have been ill men and hypocrites; Only I say that when they imposed that name of Pharisee upon themselves, sure they meant not to reproach themselves by so doing, and that Epiphanius saith they thus imposed it on pupose to denote their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by that meaning some performances of theirs, wherein they conceived themselves to exceed all others, which again was the preventing of all that he adds §. 26. And lest there should remain any doubt of this (the Diatribist setting it quite another way, and affirming that Epiphanius calls the heresy of the Pharisees by that name, as offending both in Will-worships of their own devising, and also in the abundance and superfluity of them) I shall set down here the words punctually as they are found in Epiphanius, and leave the Reader to judge on whose side the truthlyes in this particular. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
l. 1. Haer. 16.  saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They were called Pharisees for being separated from others, because of the abundant Will-worship whether prescribed or customary (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently signifies) among them, for Phares in Hebrew is interpreted Separation.  
In which words what is there I pray which can give the least ground for the Diatribists gloss, either that Epiphanius calls the heresy of the Pharisees by that name, when he only sets it down as the interpretation of that name of Pharisees, long before Epiphanius, imposed on them; or that this name was given them as a character of their offending both in Will-worships and in the superfluity of them? Certainly neither of these hath the least appearance of foundation in Epiphanius, I wonder the Diatribist could think fit to cite them from him.  
4thly That though hypocrisy were the Pharisees chief crime, and withal the fuel to their pride and despising of others, yet their doing some things which were not commanded was no part of this their hypocrisy, but on the contrary, either their saying but not doing, or their doing the lightest and neglecting the weightiest duties, or their preferring their own traditions before the commanded duties, and making the observance of the one (as in Corban) their commutation and excuse for neglecting the other, and this indeed was far more likely to inflame their pride and despising of others then the real Christian necessary performances would have been; the lightest things ascending highest, and appearing most visibly, whilst the weightier sink down and lie hid.  
But still this is no prejudice to those real performances of more strictness than the law exacts, fasting twice in the week, and the like, supposing, as we here suppose, that they are not used to the supplanting of necessary duties (but go along very friendly with the practice of them) and offend in no other respect, but that they are uncommanded performances. And this avoids all his artifices in §. 27.  
5thly That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Mac. 2. 42. signifies more than a well mindedness to the law, meaning by that the precepts of God, most evidently a spontaneous performing of some things which the law required not. Let the place be there viewed, and these two things will be evident, 1. That that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set to denote the Asidaei by way of periphrasis; Now of them 'tis certain that they were so called from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we ordinarily render mercy, but signifies saith 
in Psal. 36.  Kimchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excellence of goodness, 
Rabbini in Prov 22. 28.  others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundance of goodness, and in Maimonides, excessum & supremum gradum in one place, the excess and highest degree of any performance especially 
c in P●●ke Ave.  of charity or beneficence, and in 
More Nevoch. Part. 3  another, benignitatem erga aliquem cui nihil planè debes, vel erga eum qui beneficio dignus est, at non tanto, benignity to him to whom you either owe nothing, or not so much as you afford him, by which it is manifest that the name Asidaei denotes not only willing but spontaneous agents, which keep not themselves within the line of the law, as to do nothing which is not commanded but have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary performances to offer to God, above that which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the line of law, as the 
Rabbi Ishmael in Beracoth. c. 1.  Rabbins style it, exacts of them, and so are properly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 volunteers in or to the law, as that is opposed to pressed or hired soldiers of it.  
The second thing is, that the men that are there particularly mentioned in that place of the Maccabees, are those that listed themselves voluntarily under Mattathias to defend the law by arms, which was no where required of all men that were Jews, but was the act of the Zelots, at that time, and so again an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a spontaneous and uncommanded performance, above or beside the law; and such as these were far from being blamed, being every where commended in those men. And the Diatribist will never be able in the least degree to make good against Scaliger (what he undertakes §. 28.) that our Saviour condemned them.  
Lastly, That all the Fault was when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when what they undertook and acted laudably, whilst spontaneously, they at length imposed on others, as necessary, and for that it is, that (beside their hypocrisy of several kinds) the Pharisees are justly censured in this matter, and not for the uncommandedness of their actions, and this with the former, are a full answer to §. 28.    

CHAP. VI Of freewill offerings.  

Sect. 1. The use of them in this question. The Diatribists discourse of them. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Leviticalness of spontaneous offerings asserted by him, in order to denying them among Christians. Arguments against this conceit. Allowance of days as well as of worship among the Jews. Allowance acknowledged by the Diatribist to be as good as commands.  
TO make it evident that all things which are not commanded, are not yet unlawful or prohibited in the service of God, and consequently that all uncommanded ceremonies and circumstances (and under that head, Festivals i e. Times) of worship are not prohibited to a Christian, I thought it necessary in that Tract of Will-worship to reflect on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or free-will-offerings of the Jews, which being spontaneously, and without any obligation of divine law presented to God, were so far from being detested or disliked, that they were accepted and rewarded by him.  
And on this head I enlarged in that Treatise, conceiving the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once mentioned in the New Testament, Col. 2. and taken in the notion of spontaneous performances, to be directly parallel to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary or uncommanded oblations among the jews, and from thence concluding, as I thought, irrefragably, that the uncommandedness of a few decent rites, or useful seasons set apart for the worship of God, could not upon that one account, their being uncommanded, become presently unlawful and criminous, when even under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were allowed and accepted. And if in any other respect there were difference betwixt the things thus compared, yet I was sure there was none in that, wherein I compared them, both agreeing evidently in this, that they were equally not commanded or prescribed by God, and so though the observation of rites or ceremonies or festivals arrived not to that excellency of being parts, but only circumstances of worship, yet they would by those precedents be secured from being abominable or criminous in the sight of God upon that one account of uncommandedness, for if such they were, than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be so too, and being supposed to be uncommanded, either stand together, or both fall under the same condemnation.  
And to this part of my discourse he at length proceeds §. 29. and finding fault with me for not setting down or showing wherein the formality of a freewill offering consisted, he is pleased to spend some leaves on this task.  
But as I had not offended in that kind, nor needed this supply of his, there being evidently no more required to the formality of a freewill offering, but that 1. it were not particularly commanded by any law of Gods, and so were spontaneous (not necessary) to offer, or not to offer; 2. that it were offered to (and graciously accepted by) God, as being of those kinds which are known to be allowed by him; and both these being evidently set down by me in that Treatise §. 29. I have little to thank him for in his discourse on this subject, finding the greatest part of it to concern the prescribed, commanded sacrifices, and the willingness first, and secondly some lower degree of freeness observable in them, both which are certainly nothing to our purpose, who speak only of those oblations which were not commanded and might freely not have been offered (to which none but the last member of his distinction appertains, libertas exercitii) and yet were graciously accepted by God when they were offered, which one sort of oblations (meddling not with any other that were any way commanded) make it visible, that even under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that government of the jews where God presided immediately and gave laws precisely for the very manner of his worship, some things were yet left to men's free-power and choice, if they offered, they should be accepted, if they did not offer, they sinned not, which is the perfect image and clear interpretation of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Will-worship, for which that Treatise undertook to plead, that it was not criminous in a Christian.  
Now of these freewill offerings, defined by him, p. 91. just as I now, and then defined them, there is but one thing only which he observes by way of praecognoscendum to his answer to that Treatise, and I must here take a particular view of it, because I suppose it that, on which all his contrary hypothesis must be founded; It is this, that the formality of a freewill offering, as contradistinguished to the offerings commanded by the Law, consisting in this, that it was left free for a man to offer or not to offer, beyond what was positively required by the Law, here, saith he, the Leviticalness or Ceremoniality seems to lie, whereby (he pronounceth that) they are now abolished. And afterwards oft to the same purpose, that they were parts of the worship of God in those times is true, p. 92. intimating that those times differed from these times in this respect; and this inference, saith he, hath too much of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 show of wisdom, but neither substance, power, nor truth in it. It was so in the Old Testament, therefore it may be so in the New, p. 93. and Divines resolve that the worship of God then, was far different from the worship of the Gospel, and conclude the contrary. It rather follows, that they are not parts of worship now, because that Levitical worship was abolished. p. 94. And this is his principal engine of battery to demolish all that I had said from that parallel between those freewill offerings and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament.  
I shall therefore, I say, make some stay here to examine and consider this reserve of his, for if it shall fail him, it is evident he hath no other refuge to retire to.  
And 1. I suppose it sufficiently resolved between us, that the kind of the worship (that by bloody sacrifices etc. among the Jews) was indeed Levitical, no longer to continue then the Jewish priesthood of the Tribe of Levi continued, and so is long since abolished by Christ, and accordingly I never meant (and I hope he cannot think I meant) to conclude that the same kinds of freewill offerings which were acceptable then, that of slaying a Bullock or a Ram etc. do now continue acceptable among Christians.  
2dly. Then the only question must be of the spontaneousness of the oblations, whether that being confestly lawful and acceptable under the Law, it be now unlawful under Christ, or in plain terms, whether God's acceptance of uncommanded oblations, when the matter of them is confessed to be such as is acceptable to him, be to be deemed Levitical, and such as being peculiar to the Mosaical economy, is not now to be looked for, being abolished under Christ?  
The question thus plainly set, his affirmation is too far from the the least show of probability, and so utterly destitute of all proofs, either from reason or Scripture, as far as he hath here discovered himself (and so but a begging of the question in him that thus affirms) that there is no need of my pains in disproving it; Yet shall I offer a few considerations to this purpose, and the first such as may be of force adhominem, to this Diatribist.  
And it shall be the reminding him of his three special proofs, which he hath brought in his Preface and in his Diatribe, to infer the sinfulness of Will-worship, viz. the 2d Commandment, the sum of which is, as he oft saith, Gods prescribed worship, and all devised worship, an excess and so sin against it; The words of Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited; And (to the particular of Festivals) the 4th Commandment, against which, saith he, it is an offence in the excess to observe any other holy day, but that one of the Weekly Sabbath. Now of these three it is plain, that they are all taken out of the words of the Judaical Law, and consequently if they were fitly urged to Christians, then must it needs follow, 1. That they were thus of force against all uncommanded services in the Old Testament: and 2. That by way of analogy they still hold under the New Testament, which if they do, then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribist's present pretensions, to his allowing unprescribed uncommanded worship under the Old Testament, for how can that be when his proofs against uncommanded worship are all fetched from the Old Testament, to the abolishing in the New Testament what was allowed in the Old, for if so, how can the analogy hold betwixt the Old and the New, in which his three proofs were founded, as to the application of them to Christians?  
Which being so, the great evidences on which he had founded his hypothesis, proving so irreconcilable with his present pretention, I shall still give him his choice which part of his method he will adhere to, the former or the latter; The former he cannot (the force of those places in the Mosaical Law) for it is manifest by the freewill offerings, and now confessed by the Diatribists, that uncommanded worships were allowed; and so lawful among the Jews; And the latter he cannot, having formerly supposed in his arguing, that the analogy holds in this matter between the two Testaments.  
So that I may now form a Syllogism the premises whereof shall be both fetched out of the Diatribist, the Minor from his very words, the Major from that on which his arguments are founded, thus, Whatsoever was lawful under the Old Testament, is lawful under the New; But freewill or uncommanded offerings were lawful under the Old Testament; (and then having given me me my premises, 'twill be great unkindness to deny my conclusion) therefore, uncommanded offerings are lawful under the New Testament; Quod erat demonstrandum.  
A 2d argument against his affirmation shall be, the consideration of the liberty, and advantages which result to Christians from the abolition of the Mosaical Law. That liberty must consist, in the taking off, not in the imposing of weights and interdicts, whereas, by this Diatribists affirmation, there shall by this abolition of what was Levitical. i e. by this libert, y come in a multitude of unprofitable burdens, which never lay upon the Jews; Whensoever I shall do any thing in the service of God, which I am not particularly commanded to do, I am presently ensnared, guilty of an abominable sin, whereas a Jew might, by his confession, bring a thousand freewill offerings, and in each of them be accepted. This sure must be directly against one main part of the design of Christ's coming, and therefore is not to be admitted in the 2d place.  
3dly. It is sufficiently known, and by the Apostle affirmed, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, positive ordinances, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph, 2. 15. A Law of Commandments in ordinances, which Christ did by his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cancel and nail to the Cross, and indeed nothing else is capable of abolition or cancelling, But this of the freewill offerings, among the Jews is not any Law or Commandments or Ordinances, but rather a negation of all those, (for such is a bare allowance to be deemed) and therefore sure this, as to the voluntariness of them, was none of the things which were abolished by Christ.  
4thly. If it were true, which is here said by the Diatribist, that the Leviticalness or Ceremoniality of the offerings seems to lie here, viz. in the uncommandedness or freedom to offer or not to offer (wherein he truly saith, that the formality of a freewill offering consists, as that is contradistinguished to the commanded offerings) then sure the Leviticalness etc. would not extend to the commandedness of the other offerings, and consequently the commanded offerings under the Law would not be Levitical, Which as it is palpably false, and contrary to plain Scripture, Heb. 9 1. 20. and elsewhere frequently, so it will farther conclude also, that the commanded offerings are still in force, for by the Leviticalness and Ceremoniality, saith he, it was, that those other are supposed to be now abolished.  
5tly. Against his conclusion I thus argue, Whatsoever was lawful before the Mosaical Law to mankind, and remained lawful under the Mosaical Law, and is not now prohibited by Christ or his Apostles under the Gospel, that certainly is now perfectly lawful and free to Christians; But such are freewill offerings, Ergo. Of the Major I suppose there will be no doubt; And the Minor consisting of three branches, is manifest in the first of them, among many others by Abel's oblation, which the Fathers generally observe not to have been by way of precept from God, and 'tis affirmed by the ancient Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Pseudo-Clement, c. 22. (I say not how truly) that before the Jews idolatries and high provocations, sacrifices themselves were not imposed on, or commanded the Jews, but only left to their free power, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou wilt do it, but upon their provocations imposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that being constrained and compressed by this yoke, they might be kept from idolatry. In the 2d branch, it is granted by the Diatribist; And for the 3d, it must lie upon him to show any prohibition of Christ's or his Apostles, which forbids to do any the least thing in the service of God, which is not particularly commanded: Now this he hath not yet attempted to do (no not here, where it was most seasonable and necessary to do it, the whole weight of his cause being divolved upon it) and though it be not incumbent on me to prove a negative, yet having all Christ's prohibitions before my eyes in the New Testament, where this would be discernible, if there were any such, and being sure that I cannot discern the least glimpse of any such, and withal remembering upon what grounds the Diatribist affirms it, viz. upon the Leviticalnesse and ceremoniality of these freewill offerings, which hath already been competently disproved, and how suspicious and cautious he was in affirming that, that the Leviticalness seems to lie there, not daring to affirm any more, then that so it seemed, (and that I must suppose only to himself, no concurrence of any other man's judgement appearing with him) I doubt not but that I may with sobriety assume, that there will never be produced by him any such prohibition, and then there can be no way of superseding the conclusion, that uncommanded performances in the service of God are still lawful.  
But lest this should still seem but a less perfect, being only a negative probation, I must (to add yet more force to it) refer the Reader to the many positive instances, in the New Testament, of such freewill performances, as contradistinguisht to those which are under precept, set down in that Treatise of Will-worship, §. 30, 31, 32. etc. and much more largely in the Annotation on Col: 2. And then this will absolutely supersede all that he hath thought fit to observe here proemial to the instance of the judaical freewill offerings, or to reply to my three observations of them.  
For as to that which he specially insisteth on, and which only hath the least show of force in it, viz. Gods promulgate allowance of those freewill offerings among the jews, without which he conceives it had been unlawful to the jews to offer them, 1. that allowance being no command, is an irrefragable proof that acts of uncommanded worship may be allowed and accepted by God: and 2dly. it must be some positive prohibition which is required to make any thing unlawful, the want of a declared allowance will not do it; and 3ly. there are many evidences under the New Testament of the like allowances for those things, which are not under precept, yea, and sometimes of more than allowance, of Gods accepting and rewarding of them.  
And if, as he desires to have it observed, those voluntary oblations were a part of God's worship, then, though I am not obliged to make good the parallel so far, as that every rite and festival shall be a part of God's worship also, yet certainly I may conclude 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship is such, and that is the whole matter of our present debate; 2dly that the voluntary (I mean uncommanded spontaneous) use of these rites etc. is now as lawful, as it would have been, if they had been parts of worship, both by force of the argument, à majori ad minus, (parts of worship are much more considerable, and more specially taken care for by God then rites and other such circumstances, the reasons of which may be temporary and uncertain, upon some new or accidental emergents, whilst the reasons of performing, or instituting parts of Worship are most constant and certain) and also because among the same jews, as we have uncommanded offerings, so we have uncommanded days of worship, both festival, the feast of Purim, and of the Dedication of the altar, and fasting, that of the fourth and fifth, and seventh and tenth month, in Zachary, and all these allowed by God among them, at least approved, when used without any precedaneous special allowance.  
And then, if it have any truth in it (which the Diatribist, when he thinks it for his turn, saith expressly) that a special allowance of God was as good, and equivalent to a command, then, 1. So God's approbation will be also; and 2dly I see not how he can avoid the inference, that then, it seems, these other festivals and fasts stood by as good an authority as did the weekly Sabbath of the fourth Commandment, or the great yearly Sabbath, the day of Expiation. But this by the way, what influence it will have in this whole scheme of Phenomena, I leave him to consider.   

Sect. 2. A first instance of uncommanded Piety's, David's intention to build the Temple. Vindicated from the three answers of the Diatribist.  
HIS 30th §. proceeds after these prelusory skirmishes, to adapt answers to the several instances, which I had given of performances uncommanded, and yet accepted by God, and the first is that of David, whose intention to build God a Temple, exceeding God's command, 2 Sam. 7. 5. 7. was yet very acceptable to God, 1 King. 1. 18. and so appears to be by nathan's message to him, in that place of Samuel. To this he hath returned three branches of answer, I shall take a brief view of them.  
The first [that this is one of Bellarmine's arguments for their religious vows, and is fully answered by Chamier, 1. that it was in time of the law, when freewill offerings were allowed, but the times of the Gospel give no such allowance] is already answered in the last Section, where the Leviticalnesse and so abolition of that allowance of freewill offerings was competently examined and confuted. Yet ex abundanti I here add, that the allowance that was expressed in the law belonging to sacrifices, did not expressly pertain to the building of Temples, and if still by the analogy or parity of reason it may be extended to such other things, which were not expressed in the allowance, and yet which were not merely ceremonial, viz. to David's intention of building God an house, when God had never expressed any such command or desire, I desire to hear some satisfactory reason, why the parity of reason may not in like manner extend the same allowance to uncommanded acts of piety under Christ, in case no such allowance should appear to be expressed in the Gospel.  
This first answer therefore having so little of solidity in it, it was meet that it should be introduced with a prooeme, which might cast a prejudice upon the Argument, viz. that it was one of Bellarmine's for religious vows, and fully answered by Chamier. But 1. every Argument is not invalid which Bellarmine hath once used, I do not believe him so ill a manager, that a sharp weapon taken into his hands would presently be blunted. 2dly. Belllarmines' using it to another purpose, that of religious vows, supposing it fully answered, as to that, can have no influence on my using it to prove the lawfulness of spontaneous performances of piety; It might not come home to such vows, and yet might and doth come home to resolutions or intentions.  
And therefore if this be the truth of the matter, as it lies betwixt Chamier and Bellarmine, if it concern only the business of such religious vows, of building a Temple before God's pleasure be known concerning it and the like, than this Diatribist hath not done well to enlarge Chamiers words to this other so distant matter, and to vouch his authority both here and formerly, for the abolition of freewill offerings under the Gospel. It cannot be a good cause, which needs such aides as this.  
His 2d answer is, that God doth not absolutely deny that he had commanded, but saith 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 do it. To this I answer 1. that here is very nice distinguishing betwixt absolutely denying that he had commanded, and saying, he had not commanded. Can conscience ever be satisfied of the sinfulness of voluntary oblations, or the charitableness of judging a Church superstitious for using uncommanded rites, upon such answers as these?  
But 2. to disinvolve this intricacy, and take a sunder this subtle fabric, I demand, did God ever command David, or any governor before him to build him a Temple, or did he not? If he shall say, he did; Then is that expressly repugnant to the plain words of Nathan 2 Sam. 7. 5. Thus saith the Lord, shalt thou build me an house to dwell in? the question implies, that he shall not, and v. 7. Spoke I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of Cedar? and so forward to the same purpose; But if he shall acknowledge that God never did thus command David or any before him to build him a Temple, than it is clear, his intention to build was a freewill offering, under no command of Gods, and yet that intention accepted and commended by God, which was all I undertook to conclude in this instance.  
3dly. What he adds, that God saith this not because he would not have it done, but because not yet etc. is evidently nothing to his advantage, for still it is confessed God would not have it done by David, which was all I contended, and then David's designing to do it, was without command, and so a freewill offering; As for the prediction, that Solomon should do it, 1. That is no intimation in the least of any command to David; and 2. It followed David's resolution of doing it, and was God's answer to David, v. 13. on occasion of his resolving to build God a Temple, v. 1, 2. and so that is only a farther evidence, that what David resolved to do, was, without any the least command, only that which the dignity of the matter suggested to a pious soul v. 1. 2. and accordingly was approved by Nathan, v. 3. Go do all that is in thy heart, and also by God, 1 Kin. 8. 18. though he were not permitted to actuate this pious resolution.  
His 3d answer is, that the house that David would build was not to be a part of worship, but by accident, as the house of Obed Edom, or the place where David settled the Ark, and our Churches now, only a circumstance of worship. I answer, 1. So is a Festival now, a time, as that a place, and so equally a circumstance of worship. And 2. It being already evident that voluntary oblations were then lawful, and that those are parts of worship, 'tis visible that this had equally been lawful, if it had been a part, as it is now, being but a circumstance of worship.  
But then 3dly. The intention of building this place was sure a pious intention, an act of reverence and love to God, whose house it was designed to be, and so that being uncommanded must needs be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so directly parallel to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which I thought fit to compare it.  
And so still there is no other virtue in these answers save only to evidence his distrust in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to assure us, that he could not heartily believe, that voluntary oblations were now abolished under the New Testament, for if really they were, having rendered that for his first answer, he could not have wanted or satisfied himself with such evasions as these.   

Sect. 3. A 2d instance, and that under the New Testament. Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians; This, no action of common life, nor yet a due debt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for using, 1 Cor. 7. 31. 1 Cor. 9 17. explained. The authority of Augustine, chrysostom and Theophylact.  
MY 2d instance was that of St Paul, who might have received hire for his labour among the Corinthians, but would not, and counts and calls this matter of boasting. This, saith he, is as little to the purpose, if not less, for it is not in an action of worship, but an action of common life as himself speaks, and it is also a mistake to call it a freewill offering, when it was a due ●●bt.  
But 1. 'tis certain that I no where said that this was in an action of common life, the Reader, if he will view the place at the top of p. 17. will find that it is misreported, and truly I should have been to blame to think the Apostle's preaching and officiating among the Corinthians, in which this was, to have been an action of common life; And I shall appeal to this Diatribist himself, whether he can really doubt, whether an Apostle's exercising his office be not an act of worship, and consequently any (but) circumstance thereof, a circumstance of worship, and this over and above, an act of sacred alms and so of piety. And if it be so, than this instance of St Paul's not receiving hire, was either an action or in an action of worship, or both, and so surely a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or freewill offering.  
2dly Then, for his assertion, that it was a due debt (for which he citys Chamier) I shall make my appeal no farther then to the text itself, and the notion, which the Fathers had of it.  
The matter is set down at large, 1 Cor. 9 The preaching of the Gospel, saith the Apostle, was committed to him, and was under precept and so no freewill offering of his; That is his meaning, when he saith, For if I do this willingly, v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a volunteer (so saith 
In 1 Cor. 9  Theophylact, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If I had not been commissionated to preach, but had done it of myself, If I did preach the Gospel without any command, and so necessity to do so, if of myself, spontaneously, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have the reward, this would be rewardable in me, i. e. the very preaching would, without any other honourable circumstance to inhanse it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but if involuntarily, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Theophylact, if I am commissionated to preach, and so my preaching be an act of obedience to a plain command, and so necessary, v. 16. (and woe to me if I do it not) than all that can be said of me is, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being entrusted with a Stewardship, I discharge it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is manifest that I do it not spontaneously, but I perform my Lords command, for this is the meaning of involuntary; And so there is nothing of excellence in this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this will bring me in no reward, Upon which it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; What reward then shall be to me? i. e. What in this whole matter shall bring me in any reward? To which the Apostle answers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that preaching the Gospel, I do it freely, without making it chargeable to the auditors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that I make not use of (not as we render it, abuse not) my power or liberty that I have in the Gospel, i. e. the power of receiving maintenance from others, whether by hire from them to whom he preached, (the labourer being worthy of that) or by way of aid from other pious persons (such as Phoebe and the like, intimated by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some Christian women that attended and ministered to them v. 8.) without putting myself to bodily labour to earn necessaries, v. 6.  
The doing of this thus was that which would yield him the reward, And although this was not observed by Cephas and other Apostles, v. 5. yet sure Cephas is not conceived to have sinned thereby, but 'tis positively said that 'twas lawful for all, v. 7. 11. 14. for as for Cephas and others, though only Paul would not use it, v. 12. and accordingly both there, v. 15. and after, 2 Cor. 11. 9, 10. he distinctly counts and calls this matter of rejoicing or boasting, in respect to the reward which he was allowed to expect from God for it.  
And so nothing can be more plain than that this was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a voluntary act of piety in that Apostle toward his Corinthians, and so sure it was conceived by St Augustine, Potuit Beatus Panlus ex Evangelio sibi victum quarere; quòd maluit operari, amplius erogabat, Blossed Paul might have had his food for his preaching; that he chose rather to labour for it with his hands was a greater liberality than he was bound to. And 
In Act. 21. Tom. 4. p. 860. l. 12.  St chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he said not those words, Act. 20. 35. because it was ill to receive, but because it was better not to receive. And 
Ibid. lin. 20.  again, that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fourth and highest degree of munificence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for one that preacheth, and hath power to receive, yet not to receive. And on the place to the Corinthians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, One was a precept, the other a virtuous action of his own choice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above the Commandment, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this very respect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it hath a plentiful reward; And again, of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessity, he saith, that it pertains to the command by which it became necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to the freedom in receiving (i. e. the power to receive from the Corinthians, v. 12.) forementioned. So again. Theophylact, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. preaching the Gospel is a precept to me, and so a debt from me, and if I do it, there is no great matter of excellence in it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but to preach without charging them is the honour of my will, and in that respect there is place of boasting, in this I may fitly rejoice.  
This I have set down thus largely to clear all difficulties or doubts in this matter, and to show how punctually home it comes to the matter for which it was brought, to show not only the lawfulness but acceptation of such uncommanded performances now under the Gospel, as well as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Law.  
The only exception he offers against this, is that from v. 18. where what he doth he saith was done that he abuse not his power in the Gospel; But saith he, to abuse power is to sin, etc. But that is already answered, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to use to his own advantage, and not only to abuse; Thus in Lysias, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he took and used them, and in Isocrates in Panegyr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a seasonable use of other men's actions, by way of example: in Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ep. 8. he hath not rightly used the gift. And so 1 Cor. 7. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, using the world as if they used it not, so it must be rendered in proportion to what goes before, weep as though they wept not, rejoice as though they rejoiced not, buy as though they possessed not, and so the vulgar reads, tauquam non utantur, as if they used not. And so chrysostom on Act. 21. in the place even now cited, doth thus paraphrase it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to receive what he hath power to receive, and so here Theophylact expressly interprets it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word signifies simply to use; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, showing that they which received, sinned not a whit, which is the direct contrary to the conclusion of this Diatribist from the same premisse; And so chrysostom also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by this expression he showed, that they which received are not worthy of accusations, guilty of any fault; which they must be, if they are bound by any special call, as the Diatribist citys from Chamier (but against the whole contexture of the place) to do what they did. And so this may suffice for the second Instance, so particular, and that in the New Testament.   

Sect. 13. The third of Paul 's going up to jerusalem: this under no precept. No refusing to suffer, no retarding of the Gospel. The example of Christ and S. Paul at other times, the testimony of Origen, and confession of the Diatribist.  
THe 3d instance was taken from Paul's going up to Jerusalem, Act. 21. when, being told by a Prophet v. 11. that bonds expected him there, he might lawfully have avoided that danger, and gone some other way, and been justified by Mat. 10. 23. and yet in this conjuncture, when he might have abstained, he would yet needs go up, v. 13. and so that was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now to this, saith he, the like may be answered, viz. that it was no freewill offering, for though by the general allowance he might have fled, yet if he should have refused to suffer, with the retarding of the Gospel, he had surely sinned.  
To this answer the reply may be brief, that Paul's not going to jerusalem at that time, did in no wise imply either his refusing to suffer, or retarding the Gospel: 1. The not going, when he knows, that if he goes, he shall suffer, is not refusing to suffer, it is only the diverting at that time, the not casting himself upon apparent danger, which we find sometimes exemplified by Christ, Mat. 12. 15. upon knowledge of the Pharisees design to kill him, though sure he never refused to suffer, but esteemed it a prime part of his mission.  
Upon this occasion it was 
Contra Cells.  origen's observation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Christ did not this for fear of death, i. e. refusing, or being in the least degree unwilling to suffer, giving thereupon this universal axiom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'tis no degenerous thing to avoid dangers prudently, and not to go among them.  
And sure it would have been the same in S. Paul who was not obliged to run into danger here, any more than to go unto the multitude, or into the Theatre, Act. 19 30, 31. both which when he was willing to have done, he yet abstained from both, upon the entreaty of the disciples, & the Asiarchae that were kind to him, And accordingly we know at other times he made use of the same liberty, & industriously avoided the persecutors hands, 2 Co. 11. 33.  
And 2. his not going up was no way the retarding the Gospel, only the reserving himself to do Christ more service upon earth, in preaching the Gospel and confirming the Churches; For of this there is no question, that the Gospel might be advanced by his life, as well as by his death, and as it appears in his Epistle to the Philippians, it might be better for the Christians committed to his charge, that he should continue to live and labour among them, and accordingly the pious Christians here besought him that he would not go up, and, I hope, were not guilty of designing treachery to the Gospel in so doing, and so the Disciples, v. 4. who had by the Spirit, i. e. by the gift of prophecy received knowledge of his danger, advised him also. Not that I think the Spirit, either by them, or by Agabut, dissuaded his going, for than it had been an act of obedience to the Spirit, and so of duty not to go, but that the Spirit made known his hazard, which there he should run, leaving it free to him to go, or not to go, and that there were Spiritual reasons on both sides, and for not going, over and above, motives prudential, in regard of his own safety, and no command to despise these, nor consequently ground of necessity or obligation to go up, only an intuition of some things that seemed to be more excellent, exercising of many admirable graces, of courage, and constancy, and confession of a persecuted Christ, every of which received lustre from the certain foresight of his danger, and these, it seems, weighed down the balance with him against all the importunities of his friends, superadded to the contrary motives, and accordingly he chose that which was most noble, most excellent, most contrary to flesh and blood, made not use of that liberty which God had given him, and in that respect this is directly parallel to the former, that of refusing of hire, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he made not use of the power which he had, and so still his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his voluntary, spontaneous oblation of himself even to martyrdom, without any command or obligation for it at this time.  
Origen shall conclude this in his Books against Celsus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Though a Christian fly (and yet that is more than not going up here) yet he flies not for cowardice, but observing the commandment of his Master, (and then sure he offends not, much less betrays his Master) keeps himself pure, that others may be profited by his preservation, and so still this is not the betraying, but rather advancing of the Gospel.  
That there was no such command to S. Paul or others, binding to be bound, beaten, stoned, is here acknowledged by the Diatribist, and from thence I conclude, therefore it had not been sin in him not to go up, when he knew he should be bound, for sin is a breach or transgression of a law. This Diatribist therefore denying it to be a freewill offering, that he chose the danger, when he might have preferred his safety, aught in all reason to have showed the ground which rendered his going necessary, which having not attempted to do, but only in stead of it, affirming, that if he had refused with the retarding of the Gospel, he had surely sinned (which is equivalent to acknowledging that his bore not going to jerusalem had not been sin, in case it had not been (as certainly it might not have been) to the retarding of the Gospel) 'tis certain there remains no appearance of reason for his negation, nor consequenly of objection or pretence, why this should not be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the former, or any thing which is most spontaneous.  
The vulgar answer of some, that this was an instinct or motion of the Spirit, is not here adhered to by the Diatribist, and therefore I shall not speak to that, being also sure, that no such thing doth here appear in the Story, and therefore must not be supposed, without all proof.   

Sect. 14. The fourth of the more liberal almsgiving. Sadduces and Asidaei. Righteousness. Mercy. Paul 's advice without command. 2 Cor. 8. 2. The Diatribists answer satisfied. Alms the Christians sacrifice in the offertory. Allowance no command. A latitude of degrees in the middle rule. The Apostles direction of giving as God hath prospered. Of the circumstances of giving.  
THE fourth instance is in the almsgiving or works of mercy where the quotum (what proportion of the whole every rich man should set apart for this purpose out of his yearly revenue) being left free, and not particularly defined by God, there is evidently place for voluntary oblations, above that which is under command or necessary, as is set down undeniably in that Tract. §. 32.  
To what is there said I now add these two considerations, for the evidencing of it; the first from the very denotation of the names, Saducaei and Asidaei or Esseni among the jews: A proportion there was of charity and liberality, which was by law required of all, and this was called their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteousness, and from hence I suppose the Sect of the Sadducees, called Tsadikim, first derived their title, they that observed the whole righteousness of the Law, did all that by the Law they were required to do, and so transgressed not in this respect, But beside this, there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which exceeded this necessary proportion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundance of goodness or mercy, as hath formerly been said, and from thence the Esseni had their title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chasidim or Asidaei, and they were supposed to have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their over-measure, performances more than the Law exacted from them, and so that is an example of what I now speak of, the freewill performances of mercy.  
The Second shall be from S. Paul's language, 2 Cor. 8. 2. where speaking of the Corinthians equalling the Macedonians in liberality to the poor Jews, he gives them no command to do so, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I speak not by way of precept, v. 8.) but only his advice or opinion, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just as in the case of single life, 1 Cor. 7. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my advice; And if the Corinthians did observe and practise according to this advice, if they did give in proportion to the Macedonians, or (in case they did not) yet still the Macedonians themselves, which certainly were thus exemplarily liberal, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their own accord, v. 3. without any obligation of precept lying upon them, and yet farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above what they were well able to do, are again an instance of doing more in this kind, then either all men at all times, or they at this, were obliged to have done, and so this was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them.  
Now to this instance of works of mercy, he first resolves, that it may be answered in part, that it belongs not to the question, which is of worship, not of actions of civil life.] But to this I reply, 1. that an answer in part is no satisfactory answer, and so this professing to be no more, needs not be considered. 2. that the parity of reason holds from one act of Christian performance to another, that if in duties of charity between fellow Christians, there may be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, somewhat above the commands of the law of Christ, there may also by analogy be the same in matters of Christian worship, there being neither reason nor revelation of Christ's will, not yet of his allowance, to one more than to the other. But then 3dly This of works of mercy is generally defined to be, in a Christian performance of it, an act of worship, set in the front of such by Christ, Mat 6. 1. appointed to be exercised on the Lord's day (as a work of the day) 1 Cor. 16. 2. and accordingly interpreted by Christ to be done to himself, Mat. 25. 40. and so by S. Paul styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sacrifice, an acceptable sacrifice, Phil. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16. And yet 4. to remove all scruple, I wish that after the custom of the Primitive Apostolic Church, this alms be presented to God, in the offertory at the Sacrament, and then, as it will certainly be a branch of Christian worship, so my instance shall be set particularly to that sort of alms, and it will certainly hold in that, as exactly as in any other.  
But this imperfect answer being not confided in, he is pleased to add more, 1. That the question is not of a degree of an act of obedience, commanded, as Almes-giving is, but of the act itself, if not commanded nor allowed in the special nor in the general. But this answer cannot be of any manner of use to the Diatribist. For 1. The question being certainly this, Whether Ceremonies and Festivals in a Church are criminous, if they be not commanded by God; and ceremonies and Festivals, being gestures and times, and so circumstances not acts of worship, 'tis visible that the question is not only of the act itself. 2. The reason being the same of circumstances and of degrees, of one accessory and of another, it follows, that if uncommanded degrees, may be lawful, uncommanded circumstances must be lawful also. 3. Though almes-giving in general be commanded, yet as long as the degrees be uncommanded, the argument from the lawfulness of those degrees will hold to the justifying of Ceremonies or Festivals, because as almes-giving is commanded, so praying to, and praising of God is commanded also, and these ceremonies and Festivals are as visibly circumstances of prayer and praising as these degrees are of almes-giving. Nay 4. To take away all possibility that this answer should be useful to him, the instance which I set of almsgiving is of an uncommanded act, for supposing the utmost degree of the uncommanded mercy to be once defined and determined, and suppose me to exceed that proportion in giving, 'tis evident that that exceeding is an act first, and then an uncommanded act; an act, for so is every exercise or work of mercy, and this giving is such an exercise; and an uncommanded act, for so is all which is not under precept, and so this is supposed to be, and herein it is perfectly answerable to the freewill offering among the Jews; Sacrifice or offering was a determined and commanded duty, and every exercise of that, above what was commanded, was a freewill oblation, and as such accepted by God; and so it is here.  
As for his cautious restriction added in the close of that answer, which pretends that the question is of such acts, which as they are not commanded, so neither are they allowed in special or in general, he must needs know that this is an imposing on the reader; For 1. The question being of the lawfulness of uncommanded acts, and allowance, whether general or special, being yet no command, for no man is bound to do all that he is allowed to do; 'tis evident that the acknowledging the lawfulness of allowed acts, as they must needs be lawful, if they be allowed, is the acknowledging the lawfulness of some uncommanded acts; for such are they which are no more then allowed.  
2. For the clearing of this, I shall offer the Diatribist this Dilemma; Are these high but uncommanded degrees of mercy allowed either in general or special now under the Gospel, or are they not? If they are not, than this cautionary clause was very impertinently added, and my instance, though it proceeded of degrees which are not thus allowed, yet proceedings of degrees which are not commanded, was a valid instance. But if they are allowed, as I suppose by his caution he will affirm, why then, it seems, there is either general or special allowance still under the Gospel for uncommanded acts, and then there is as much for them under Christ, as there was under Moses for freewill offerings, and so the Leviticalness of the freewill offerings consisted not in this, that they were thus allowed, and then this was no part of that Levitical Law, nor consequently of that which was abolished, as 
p. 91.  before he had affirmed, and so the Diatribist's whole scheme is demolished, or rather fallen asunder of its own accord, as all infirm fabrics are apt to do.  
What follows in the 2d place, as if it were an answer to the instance, is but an attempt or two of the Diatribists, out of my words to gain some advantage, and thereby to conclude that there is some middle rule that binds men so, as that whatsoever is more or less than that, offends either by way of excess or defect.] But both this and all the other artifices were exactly prevented in the manner of my setting of the instance, of a proportion exceeding that, whatever it is, which can be defined our duty, and yet not offending against any other engagement of the givers. For if that which is done be more than that which we are any way bound to, 'tis impossible it should transgress in the defect; and yet being no way forbidden to give so much, not being guilty of neglecting any other part of duty incumbent on us, 'tis on the other side as impossible that there should be any excess. Nay there being, in the New Testament, a visible allowance, of selling all and giving to the poor, of laying that all at the Apostles feet, and St Paul commending the Macedonians who had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, willingly liberal above their power, 1 Cor. 8. 3. and the like, our greatest liberalities, if they be prudently ordered and seasanably placed (and there is no necessity, that he that is most liberal or merciful should be a fool) are competently secured from offending on that side.  
And therefore the Diatribist that from the possibility of falling into extremes, was willing to collect a middle rule, and from thence a debt, should in any reason have assigned that rule, and produced his authority for it in the New Testament, and then the weakness of his answer would soon have been visible. For I should immediately have assigned some proportion exceeding that middle, and made my instance of that, and so have proceeded as formerly. But the truth is, such a middle cannot be produced; And if it cannot, then is this an evident proof, that there are no such middle points quos ultra citráque nequit consistere rectum, the variation from which is always criminous; Nay if it were not simply impossible, and yet cannot easily be done by every man for himself, or by the teacher for all, then still it is evident that this obligation is not universally revealed, & so no duty universally obligatory; and then my instance shall be set to such a person, to whom it is not obligatory.  
But, as I said, there is no ground in the Gospel for defining or determining the middle rule, which constitutes a debt. The truth is, that this middle rule consists not in any indivisible point, but in a latitude, wherein there are many degrees, but all within the rule of allowance, though not all within the rule of precept, he that observes the duty in any degree of the latitude, doth well (for if not, then that was too great parsimony, and so no obsers vation but a breach of the rule) and he that goes yet farther, but not beyond the latitude, doth better, for so he must, unless he go too far, which if he do, than he is prodigal, and that is a breach of the rule again on the other side.  
By this it appears, that as there is allowance not only for some one point, but for every degree within the latitude, so every degree of that latitude doth not bind every man, so as to make that degree a debt or duty in that man; No nor the general rule of giving according to God's prospering them (the only thing which the Diatribist hath still behind) For besides that that rule, 1 Cor. 16. 1. seems to have a propriety to that particular time in consideration of the great distress and famine in Judea, and consequently is not a rule for all other times; Besides this, I say, it is manifest, that they which do observe that rule, i. e. offend not in the defect against it, may yet be able to exceed the proportion, which that rule strictly required, and then not only do well (as they must, if they offend not against any other rule) but also do better, for such must all that be, which is more than well, and yet degenerates not into ill.  
For suppose a man, in desire to observe that rule of giving as God hath prospered him, to give the tenth of his profits weekly or yearly, and suppose him to do well in so doing, i e. not to offend against the rule, as it is set and meant by St Paul, or if the tenth be not a fit proportion, let any other be assigned which is fit, and then suppose that man yet to give more, so that still he offend not against any other precept by excessive giving, and then you have the instance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the uncommanded yet acceptable work of mercy, still the same, as formerly, though somewhat more explicitly set, and so a more manifest evidence, that nothing is by this Diatribist (I may say, can be) produced as a valid exception or objection against it.  
For as to that of the circumstances of time and place and persons in regard of the necessities of the poor, the case which I set is not capable of those considerations, my instance being not laid in any particular alms, terminated in a particular person (though that also would admit of a latitude, I might give as much as were my duty to that particular person, and then I might exceed that, give more to him, and that would be my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but in a weekly or yearly consecration or setting apart of some more liberal proportion for pious and charitable uses, not foreseeing particularly what they are, and withal not restraining myself from giving more, if objects offer themselves to my charity, above what my assignation will extend to. This setting the case evidently prevents all those difficultis arising from circumstance of time and place and persons by remaining absolutely loose and abstract-from all these, and thus the case was (and is to be) set, and will not doubt to secure itself from all objections by thismeans.   

Sect. 6. The fifth instance vindicated. Circumstances of Prayer acknowledged free. Difference between placing worship in gestures, etc. and pleasing God by them. So in Festivals,  
MY fifth instance was in secret prayer, 1. of the adjoining bodily worship to it, any such as is most humble, and yet not under command, as prostration &c: 2. of the frequency of it, seven times a day, with David, or some other proportion above that which is by the evangelical law supposeable to be required of us. To this he answers briefly, that Prayer indeed is a worship of God, but for the manner, gestures, times frequency, they are not properly worship, but circumstances, rites, etc. left to the liberty of every person, and so though free, not parts of worship.  
This answer is very brief indeed, but needed not to have been larger, being in these few words a yielding of the whole cause; For is it not evident, that if gestures and times be free, than ceremonies and Festivals are so too, and if they are, then are they lawful at once and uncommanded, for freedom comprehends both those being free to be done and so lawful, free to be left undone, and so uncommanded. I need add no more, sure, of that.  
What follows in that §. is on purpose designed to involve this plain matter, and reduce it into an intricacy: And the way to do it is to confound or shuffle together, these two things, placing the worship of God in them, and pleasing God by them. But to this I answer, that these are two distant things, and so in all reason to be severed. He that justifies or defends the use of the humblest gestures in the service of God, and affirms them to be more acceptable to God, then either the less humble gestures, or those which have no humility at all in them, doth not yet place worship in them but willingly acknowledges that God may be worshipped without them.  
So he again that undertakes the defending of other Festivals annually commemorative of the birth and ascension of Christ, etc. beside the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, and affirms it to be acceptable to God that we observe these also, and that the thankful pious observation thereof is more acceptable to God than the contrary whether negligence or contumacy, doth not yet place the worship of God in these Festivals, but in the prayer and thanksgiving which are offered to God in those Festivals. And the same will certainly hold in all other particulars, to which either the Treatises arraigned by this Diatribist, or this defence have attempted to extend it. Such are the frequent, daily, and constant hours of prayer, either public, or private, supposing as still I do, that they do not interfere with, or supplant any other duty, or run out all into formality, etc.  
Of this last frequency of Prayer, he would fain persuade us that it is not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (but a debt) and to that end tells us first of pray continually, that the scope of it is to command frequent prayer every day, and 2. that it hath respect to the frequent occasions and necessities of men every day, and so binds to pray as oft as need shall be, with ejaculatory prayers at least. And yet in the midst of this, speaking of the particular number of 7 times a day, he is content to acknowledge it true what I say, i. e. that it is no debt. And if so, then is that all that I contend for, supposing a man to pray as oft as that precept [Pray continually] obligeth, & withal to use ejaculatory prayers as need shall be, and yet farther to have more frequent daily returns to the solemn performance of that duty, than that precept is pretended to require, than still this is under no precept, and yet no doubt acceptable, and so still as exact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as could be pitched on.   

Sect. 7. Of the difference betwixt a precept and a grace. The proportionable return to grace is in a latitude. The highest no excess. A possibility for grace to be given in vain.  
HIS next branch of discourse is designed to discover my mistake in making the difference so great betwixt a precept and a grace, And my setting down of that difference consisting of many degrees, of which each superaddes to the former, and not any one single, but all taken together are a perfect stating of it, the Reader is desired to review the whole matter §. 39 and by so doing he will soon find that every of the Diatribists objections to the former degrees, was perfectly prevented and answered in the following, save only the last of them, and therefore that only remains to be now examined.  
The objection is p. 103. that sure as grace itself, so any measure or degree of grace being a talon also, requires a proportionable return to that degree, as to whom more is given, of him is more required. But to this also my answer hath formerly been intimated, viz. that as in the middle rule of almes-giving there is a latitude, so here in the proportionable return to any degree of grace, this proportionable return is not so placed in any indivisible point, that as he that comes short of that point offends in the defect, so the exceeding that point in the least degree shall be an offence also, but, as I said, in a latitude, wherein there may still be a variation, and yet all the degrees of that within the latitude.  
And therefore as it may be true of two men that have the same grace in specie, that both may use it well, and yet one make better use of it then another, so it is supposeable of the same degree of the same grace, for though to that degree of grace, there be some degree also of return proportioned, that who so fails in that, offends by defect, yet it doth not follow from thence, that whoso exceeds that minimum quod sic, that least degree that was proportionable, shall presently offend by way of excess, but indeed the contrary will be most visible, that he that thus exceeds is more acceptable and more highly rewardable.  
He that had ten talents entrusted to him to occupy withal, and having gained other ten, was accepted and rewarded, had he been yet more industrious, and brought in his Master more profit, gained eleven or twelve talents by those ten, 'tis not imaginable but this would have been acceptable also to his Lord, and yet more highly rewardable.  
Paul laboured more abundantly than all the Apostles, and this by the grace of God that was in him, and by some eminent measure of that grace, and supposing that measure to have been no greater in him than it was either in John or Peter, yet would this certainly have been accepted by God, and more richly rewarded, and not used like the giants on Procustis his bed, all the exuberance cut off and cast away, I mean required to come down to that lower degree of return, which either of those other disciples did make, or to lose his reward of that higher degree. And so this is full answer to all his exceptions against the difference by me assigned between Precept and Grace.  
As for his incidental wonder at my expression when I said [it is the design of grace only to strengthen and incline, which he that makes use of as he should, is promised a reward] upon which he cries out, This is strange divinity, doth God give grace only to strengthen and incline, and leave men free to use it or not to use it? so grace might be given in vain.] To this I briefly answer, 1. from the words of Scripture, Heb. 12. 28. that men are exhorted to have grace, i. e. I suppose to make use of it, as when to him that hath, Christ promiseth it shall be given, and he shall have abundance, 'tis evident it signifies, to him that makes use of the grace which he hath, and certainly that exhortation were in vain, if the contrary were not possible, and so likewise when he which hath not (makes not due use of it) is threatened with the auferetur, & ejicietur, taking away from him his talon, and casting him into utter darkness, sure 'tis supposed possible, that some man may not make use of his talon, or else these threatenings must be in vain, or men both deprived and cast out without any demerit.  
Again, doth not the Apostle exhort, that we receive not the grace of God in vain, that we grieve not, quench not (as elsewhere there is mention of resisting) the Spirit? Doth he not tell us of some that did abuse the grace of God unto wantonness? and can none of these be done? Is it not possible, through our own corruption and sinful negligence and default, to resist, to grieve, to quench the spirit, be it of prayer, of faith, of charity &c. to abuse it to wantonness, or not to use it through idleness? What then is the meaning of laying up the talon in the napkin, that was so punished? Did not he receive the talon, the grace in vain?  
But as generally it falls out, that those that reprehend this kind of Divinity most demurely, if they be a while observed, need no other evidence to confute them but what their own words will yield us they that leave nothing to man's will, do yet often exhort and reprehend men, which must certainly be vain and ridiculous, unless they that are exhorted be in some possibility by God's grace to do what they are exhorted to do, and they that are reprehended in the same possibility to have done otherwise; so hath it happened to this Diatribist; He that just now thought the Divinity so strange, that grace might be given in vain, adds in the very next words that S. Matthew saith, take him and cast him into utter darkness for not using his talon, which certainly is that identical strange thing, with grace being given him in vain, as to all fruit, or use he made of that grace. And in the very next words again he adds, Is he not threatened with loss of his talon for not using it?  
But 'tis possible the strange divinity here censured, may have been somewhat else, not my supposing that it was left physically free or possible for man to use or not to use grace, but that it was morally free, i. e. lawful, or that which included no sin, and then Gods not giving of grace in vain, must be his not giving it so as that it shall be no sin not to use it; And if that be his meaning, then, as his expressions were very strange, much more than my divinity, so strange that I, whose divinity it was, could not understand it, as it was thus disguised by him, (for who would say that to give grace without any design of laying obligation sub periculo animae to make use of it, were to give grace in vain? Is there no other possible use of grace but to condemn them, and render them unexcusable? this indeed is another branch of no very old Divinity, though these days have not made it strange with some men) so I suppose I have already given answer to this in the former part of this §. and must not now so soon repeat it.  
The short is, though grace bring obligation with it, and that to some return proportionable to that grace, yet still this proportionable return consists in a latitude, which hath several degrees in it, and as the lowest of these are under obligation, so the superior are not, but yet such as will be accepted and rewarded by God, to him that arrives to them. And so much for that of the difference between the grace and precept, which he thought would have yielded him so great advantage.   

Sect. 8. My answer to a first head of objections vindicated. Prudence lost by man's own sin recoverable by grace. The punishments of Adam's sin are not our faults. Perfection of innocence capable of degrees. So perfection of the Judaical law, and of the Christian. So mercifulness to ability. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8. 3. Merciful as God is merciful belongs not to the degree. God's righteousness punishes not where there is no law. Intuition of reward in Christian performances, no Popery. Proofs of this from Scripture, from the nature of Hope, Faith, Gratitude. Not always prudent to undertake the highest. Martyrdom no conceited Popish perfection, yet under no precept to all. S. Hieroms words examined. Two notions of the word Perfection. Some perfection possible in this life, and yet capable of growth. The law, as it signifies the condition of the first Covenant, is not now in force with believers. Of Christ's perfecting the law. Every man is not bound to do what is best. 1 Cor. 7. 3. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of moral good. The saying of Gregory explicated.  
WHat remains now in that Tract of Will-worship, was by me added for the preventing of mistakes; To which end three heads of objections I proposed, the first arising from the obligation that prudence seems to lay upon us to do always that which is fittest and best, the second from the general precept of loving the Lord with all the heart, etc. the third from the seeming favourableness of our doctrine to the Romanists works of supererogation, & to each of these I gave particular answers, which must be viewed in that Tract from §. 40. to the end. And to these answers, what he now opposes, I shall now examine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And first, saith he, Every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of prudence which he lost by sin. To this I answer, that if he speak of the man's own actual sins, whereby he hath any way infatuated himself, there is then truth in his affirmation; but 'tis not appliable to the matter in hand, viz. to such an high degree of prudence as now I speak of, for of that he may come short, without any degree of actual sin as shall thus infatuate and deprive him of prudence; and besides, speaking, as I do, of a pious, merciful, and so of a regenerate man, I may suppose him by the enlightening wise Spirit of God returned to that state of prudence from which his own actual sins may have degraded him, & in case he be so, then, as he is as prudent as by this rule of the Diatribists thus understood he is bound to be, so certainly he is yet capable of growing in that, as in other graces, and so of being yet more prudent, and if he do so, and thereby obey that exhortation of S. Peter's, Grow in grace and in the knowledge— he is still free from sin in this respect, though he have not yet arrived to the highest degree of prudence that humane, but lapsed nature is capable of.  
But if by sin he means not actual but original sin, and so thinks that every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of prudence that Adam lost by his fall, this sure will be found to be a mistake; For this loss of adam's was a punishment of Adam's sin, and when it is inflicted by God on his posterity, must be looked on as a punishment, and he that is punished cannot be obliged not to be punished, No man is now obliged to be as prudent as Adam was in his integrity any more than to be as healthy, i. e. in effect to be immortal, Nay supposing Adam to have sinned and so to have transgressed the Law in that, it cannot be imagined, that it is over and above that, a new or farther act of sin in him to be less knowing, prudent, or healthy, than he was; all these, without any new act of his will, nay contrary thereto, falling upon him by God's decree or punitive justice; and if it were not sin in Adam himself, then sure it cannot be such in his posterity, and so a man now, one of his posterity, cannot be bound to that degree of prudence which Adam once had, any more than to be born in the state of innocence and perfection, when yet he is necessarily supposed to be born after the image of the lapsed imperfect Adam, which he could not be, if he were born in this perfection.  
And when in the same place he adds, that every man is bound to be pious in the highest degree, proving it by this, that the law requires perfection of holiness, and the Gospel (saith the Doctor) yet greater perfection, and every man is bound to be merciful to his ability, as our heavenly Father is merciful (which sure is the highest degree) this is but an heap of paralogismes, no one of the proofs belonging to the highest degree of piety or mercy, which was the one thing which was to be inferred from them.  
For 1. the perfection of holiness which the law required, was but either sincere and upright, or at the most but unsinning obedience, and neither of those includes the highest degree of piety, which is possible.  
If by the law be meant the Covenant made with Adam in innocence, than indeed 'tis true that the perfection which that required was unsinning obedience, and if Adam had performed that, 'tis yet evident that he had been capable of higher degrees of piety than that law required, there being in unsinning obedience, a latitude, and so many degrees, of which the lowest denominates it unsinning, and so perfect in that sense, and all the superior degrees are additions, and to each of those highest the Law cannot be thought to bind when it is satisfied with the lowest.  
This will be plain by the instances formerly given of frequency in prayer etc. wherein it is visible that Adam in innocence might have exceeded any proportion which Gods law will be supposed to have required of him; And in a word, if Adam had never sinned, yet might his state have been a state of proficiency, by which it is evident that the perfection required of him was not the highest degree of piety, for than he had sinned by any lower, and so innocence and growth in him had been incompetible; Beside, there is no reason to doubt but that Adam and his posterity should have been rewarded according to their works, and so have been capable of different degrees of rewards; in case they had continued in innocence, which yet had been impossible if every man had been bound to be pious in the highest degree, and had sinned as oft as he did not arrive to it.  
But this is but speculation; & by the law I rather suppose he meant the law of the Jews, & then the perfection of holiness which that required must, I suppose, signify truth & sincerity of holiness, such as was in Zac. Lu. 1. 6. & in respect of which he was said to be just & blameless in all the Commandments of the Lord— Now 'tis as certain that this perfection is as capable of degrees also, and that all that are thus perfect, are not yet so in the highest, or in the same degree, 'tis certain Zachary and Elizabeth were both thus perfect, but no way probable that they were arrived just to the same degree of it, one might very reasonably be deemed to excel the other.  
This may appear of the Judaical Law by that which we have oft cited out of the Law, that there was one degree of mercy which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their righteousness, that to which they were obliged by the Law; another styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundance or excellence of goodness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Law didnot command, sub periculo animae, require or exact from them: This is so plain I need say no more of it.  
Secondly, That greater perfection, which Christ required, is yet but a higher degree of the same perfection, but not the highest that is possible; Suppose there be eight degrees as of heat in nature, so of zeal or piety, or perfection, and suppose a Jew required to have so many of them as would denominate him perfect, i. e. at least five of them, and a Christian to have more than a Jew, suppose six, yet 'tis visible that he that hath all that is required of a Christian, is yet capable of having more, then is so required, viz. seven, & yet not to arrive to the highest that is possible, i. e. to the 8. degree  
But beside this, there is in every such degree a latitude also, and in it as it were fractions, of each degree (and all this subdivision little enough to bear proportion with the great difference of the works of pious men here, or with the difference of the degrees of their glory hereafter) and he that hath the lowest fraction of the sixth degree, hath the sixth degree, but not in so high a measure, as he that attaineth to an higher, viz. to the seventh degree, or to another fraction of the sixth, and so 'tis evident in the hypothesis or application, that every Christian may be obliged to exceed a jew in piety, mercy etc. and yet nothing hinder but that one Christian may exceed another in every of these.  
Thirdly, Though every man be bound to be merciful to his ability, yet 1. That mercifulness which is according to ability is not placed in any indivisible point; Two men that have the same abilities, and the same opportunity and occasion requiring mercy from them, may very lawfully give or be merciful one more than another; For supposing any sum that in all those circumstances both are bound to give, yet certainly one may lawfully exceed that sum give more than he was thus obliged, and yet not do beyond his ability; and 2. In case he do yet give more, even beyond his ability, i. e. deny himself lawful enjoyments on purpose to enable himself for this higher liberality, yet sure this will not be sinful in him, but on the contrary more acceptable and commendable, as it was in the Macedonians; of whom St Paul testifies that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus liberal of their own accord beyond their power, and as such are proposed for an example to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 8. 3.  
Lastly, The precept of being merciful as our heavenly Father is merciful, is not (the Diatribist well knows) applicable to the degree of mercy which is in God, for finite creatures cannot attain to that but only to the kind of it, mercy to enemies as well as friends, and so could not with any colour be brought for a proof of his objection. And indeed after all this the Diatribist hath let fall a few words in the close of this 4th §. which show he had no belief in the force of it, For having set the case so as is the most for his advantage that he could wish, all circumcumstances so concurring that a man should be bound to give so much as will supply another's wants, and to give less were neither prudent nor pious, yet he dares not pronounce if an offence against either of those virtues, to go beyond this, but breaks off abruptly with these words [whatever it were to give more] From which in confidence of his I shall not doubt to infer, that in that very case, so clothed with all those circumstances, he cannot deny, but that as I am bound to supply his present wants, so I may make provision also against his future necessities, and be far from sinning, do that which is more acceptable to God in so doing.  
His next return to a 2d degree of my answer, is taken from his old Topick, of virtues consisting in a middle point between two extremes, from which if it swerve to either extreme it is a fault though not observed, perhaps observable by men, yet justly punishable by a righteous God. But to this though much might be said afresh, from the consideration of that righteousness of God, which doth not use to punish those facts which have no Law observable by man to forbid them, but first shows men his will, and what is good, and then requires obedience to it, yet because so much hath already been said both to that of all virtues being placed in the middle, and to the latitude and not indivisible point of that middle, I shall not now give farther reply to that; Any more than to the next branch of it, of prudence in our created nature, requiring to do what was fittest, for to that I have spoken already in this §.  
Under this head of prudence, one farther degree of objection, I foresaw, viz. that Prudence knowing the greatest perfection to be most gloriously rewarded, would bind a man to aspire to perfection, and not to content himself with any thing but the best. Upon the first sight of these words the Diatribist is startled, and disclaims making any such objection. But to this I answer, that he well knows I had no intelligence with him, and consequently could not divine his pleasure, but as well as I could proposed all objections I foresaw possible from him, or any man else, of the most different persuasions.  
But then till he shall please to propose other which have more force in them (as all this while he hath not proposed any, but such as those from the 2d Commandment) I might expect that this my service should not be so very ill interpreted and fastidiously cast off, with a [we should not have framed such an objection.]  
The crime which was thus to be averted, was it seems, a leaven of Popery, in those words wherein I had proposed the objection; And 1. If it were so indeed, I wonder, what error I had committed, or why Papists may not be permitted to make objections, or how the Diatribist came to have the monopoly of making them. But then 2. What was the suspicious phrase which I had used? Why forsooth, that I mentioned glorious rewarding, This, saith he, seems at first sight to touch upon the mercenary and meritorious way of Romanists.  
This is not to the business in hand, yet I cannot but make some stay, and behold this rarity. For 1. Is the mercenary way all one with the Romanists doctrine of merits? If it be, it is to be feared, that David was a Romanist, for certainly he affirms it of God, that he rewardeth every man according to his works, even when he deprecates the mercy and free grace of God, and makes this the prime evidence of it that he thus rewards men. Nay what is Christ when he minds them of their great reward in heaven that suffer for him, Mat. 5. 12. That give, and pray in secret, Mat. 6. 2. 5. of a prophet's reward and a righteous man's reward, Mat. 10. 41. and of St. Paul of such works peculiarly as were not under precept, 1 Cor. 9 18. and a multitude of the like nature every where in the Scripture? Is not this reward, merces, and is not all that obedience which is performed in intuition of the glory which shall be revealed, this very mercenary way? and being so, is it presently the meritorious way of the Romanists; Is there not merces ex pacto, reward by the tenure of Christ's promise, as well as merit either of congruity or condignity; and is it as unlawful to look at and expect the performance of God's promise, as to challenge heaven as the merit of our works?  
Again, hath not Christ proposed his rewards on purpose to allure us to come unto him? and is it not lawful for us to come that very way which God hath called us? Is not hope a Gospel's grace, and such as sets us a purifying, 1 Joh. 3. 3. and is not the future reward the object of that hope, and so that which regularly sets a Christian about his work? Nay is not that Faith which justifies, in this Diatribist's opinion, the belief of the promises? and may not a Christian then look at those promises, which yet he must believe?  
But, saith he, he must first look on the commands of God, and beauty of holiness, and seek that first for itself, and by and by, it is but carnal prudence, advising only or first to look at the perfection of glory. But to this I answer, 1. That the form of my objection was not such as supposed prudence to look either only or first on glory, but on the greatest perfection (of virtue here) as the way to the most glorious reward (hereafter) And therefore to insert the word [only] was that to which he had no kind of temptation.  
Nay for the priority of order, looking first on the reward, it is visible that I had not given the least intimation of it, but chose I had said distinctly, that prudence would advise to aspire to perfection, and to the best, meaning evidently the perfection of virtue (not of glory) to which the most glorious reward was proportioned. And yet after all this, suppose I had spoken of some man (in my objection) who looks first at the perfection of glory, and in order to that last end, pursues virtue as the one way to it, could he justly say this were carnal prudence in him and sinful?  
The beauty of holiness is a thing seldom discerned but by the experience and practice of it, and in that case sure there is need of promises to excite and attract to that practice (yea and of terrors to drive) and the Gospel makes use of both these, and so doth Faith, which is the Spiritual, not carnal prudence. And indeed, if the beauty of holiness may first be looked on, and that is one promise, but that a less perfect one and to be enjoyed in this life, then why may not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or eternal reward, which is also the beauty of holiness, and that a perfect beauty, a purity from sin, as well as immunity from burdens and miseries, a wiping away spots, as well as tears, be first looked on also.  
Briefly I shall demand of the Diatribist, whether gratitude in a regenerate man who hath received from Christ the great benefits of election and redemption and justification, may not be allowed to incite and stir up duty? If it may, I demand again, whether the reward decreed to him in his election be not looked on by him, and whether that do not excite this gratitude? If it do, whether this be a carnal gratitude, and the mercenary way of the Romanists?  
But I must not allow myself farther to expatiate on such digressions: The Diatribists divinity in this point is but suitable to what formerly he gave us a taste of, in the passage of slavish fear, and both together are exemplified to us by the woman that went about the city with a firebrand in one hand, and a basin of water in the other, saying, that one was to burn up heaven, and the other to quench the fire of hell, that neither hope nor fear, promises, nor terrors might have the least influence on her, but pure ethereal love do the whole work. And all that I shall need add, is only this, that still there is an heaven and hell in Scripture (and all duty is not quite rarified and converted into this love) and many good Christians there are, which make use of both these, and offend against no precept of Christ in doing so.  
But I have at large handled this point of looking at the promises in our obedience, not only in a Sermon on 1 Cor. 7. 1. but more punctually in an addition to the Pract. Catech. now in the Press, p. 416. etc. and so shall not here any farther enlarge upon it.  
My answers there to the forementioned objection are fitter for the Diatribist to combat with. I proceed therefore to consider what replies he makes to them.  
To my first answer, which was this, That though prudence doth advise to this of aspiring to perfection, yet doth it not lay any command, so as not to obey it will be presently sinful] (a thing which had oft been proved formerly, by the example of S. Paul's advices when he had no commands, for sure Prudence may well imitate S. Paul herein, and do so too) To this I say, he replies by bare affirming but not proving or offering the least proof for the contrary, only when he mentions the perfection of virtue, he adds [required by the commands of God] as if the highest degree of virtue were under command, which he knows is the thing which through this whole debate is denied by me, and the proofs and reasons of my denying it given at large, and then what a begging of the question is it to affirm it here, without any tender or overture of probation?  
To my second answer then, which was by considering the want of strength in some men, which makes it not prudent in them to undertake the steep way of the greatest perfection, founded in the words of Christ, He that can receive it, let him receive it,] He replies by ask what perfection I mean which will be dangerous to undertake as a steep way? that which is required in the commandments of the Law and Gospel?] I answer, 'twere a contradiction and madness in me, when I speak of perfection, which is not under command, to mean that which is required in the commandments, It is certain I mean uncommanded degrees of virtue, the undertaking those courses be it of virginity, austerities, abundant labourings, Martyrdom itself, when either I am not competently furnished with strength from God for the going through with them, or have not any reason to persuade myself that I shall be so furnished. For then, if indeed I have not strength, the very undertaking such heights may prove treacherous and precipitious to me. And that this is my meaning, he at last takes notice, and fills his margin with proofs of it, both from this, and from another Tract, and when he hath taken all that pains to find out my meaning (which I profess to be it, and thought it had been obvious to any man before) he fairly takes his leave of it again, hath nothing to say to it, but returns to that perfection of holiness which, saith he, is the duty of all, and all that I need return to him, is this, that if it be so, it is not that perfection I speak of viz. virginity, etc. for that, I hope is not every man's duty, but at at the utmost his, who can receive it.  
This he is resolved not to take notice of, and accordingly proceeds, and when I say, that even the precept of God may sometimes interpose and make it unlawful for us to aspire to the most perfect state (meaning evidently virginity, martyrdom, etc.) he saith this is as strange (and again in the rear, by way of exclamation, What strange divinity is this!) demanding whether God's precepts cross one another— when he cannot but see that my whole discourse and process is founded in the supposition of that evident truth, that these states of perfection are not under any precept of Gods, and so that the precept which shall cross the undertaking of them, is far from crossing any precept of God.  
After this repeated exclamation and wonderment, he is content at length, as he saith, to hear me speak and explain myself. And my explanation being by supposition of a duty of our calling awaiting us on the one side, and an opportunity of martyrdom on the other, and that exemplified by S. Cyprian's case, that then obedience is better than the richest sacrifice] here he finds place for triumph and ovation. By this 'tis evident, saith he, he means not perfection of holiness according to the commandments of God, but a conceited perfection of martyrdom, as Papists do.  
That I who speak through that whole Tract of uncommanded acts, should not mean that perfection which is according to (as that signifies required by) the Commandments of God, is too evident to be any special 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or discovery at this time now toward the conclusion of his view of that Discourse. Of that therefore he hath my free confession; But if by perfection according to the Commandments he will allow me to mean (as the words literally import) that sort and degree of perfection which the Commandments of the Gospel allow of very well, though they require it not of every man, or lay it under precept, than I shall not doubt to approve the perfection which I instance in, viz. that of martyrdom, to be such, (unless when some discharge of known duty or yet greater good calls us another way) and if this be the doctrine of Papists, I hope yet that all Protestants are not therefore bound to disclaim it, I never heard that our old English reformation, which I thought had been sealed by the blood of many martyrs, had looked on martyrdom as a conceited Popish perfection, And if this be the privilege of the present deformation to exclude martyrdom out of the catalogue of virtues, as the Martyrs and Saints out of our Calendars, if this Diatribist be now one of that Triumphant Church, which hath thrown all cross from their shoulders, and disclaimed all pretensions to this conceited perfection, and resolved all to be Papists which shall thus communicate with the sufferings of Christ, and observe this conformity with the image of God's son, Rom. 8. I shall only tell him that I shall be very well pleased to be guilty of this piece of Popery, and to suffer from this sword of the tongue till God please to call me to any higher trials: Mean while when the Apostle and the Church which hath transcribed his style, have used the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfected by sufferings, and called martyrdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection, I cannot retract that style, what envy soever fall on me for the using it.  
What now follows in pursuit of this matter, Does God call all men at all times to martyrdom? Is there any command for all men to be martyred etc.] is directly the evincing my assertion against himself, for upon that very foundation it is that I superstruct, therefore Martyrdom which is the highest degree of perfection, is not under any command, Quod erat demonstrandum.  
In my third answer, which was, that perfection here had degrees in it, and consequently supposing men bound to be perfect, Mat. 5. 48. yet it follows not that they are bound to the highest degree of perfection) his answer is, he will grant this, and yet deny my voluntary oblations still,] But how can that be, when that higher degree of perfection is supposed to be under no precept, and so to be free, and so when arrived to, a voluntary oblation? But his grant, it seems was only conditional, for it follows in his words [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 that highest is so far culpable] This condition I confess I cannot perform, and so must lose the advantage of his grant, And truly to require it of me is to grant my premises, and require me to renounce my conclusion, For from that concession, that there are degrees in perfection, and there may be perfection, where yet there is not the highest degree of perfection, it infallibly follows, that the highest degree of perfection is not under obligation of that precept which requires no more than that we be perfect, as when the precept binds to no more than to be merciful in some degree, it is evident that it binds not to be merciful in the highest degree, and consequently that the highest degree of mercy shall be still free, under no obligation of precept.  
In this matter he desires to speak his own sense in St Hieromes words, Charitas quae non potest augeri etc. citing Ep. 62 for it. But this citation is sure mistaken, there is no such thing in that Epistle. The place sure is in St Hieromes Epistle to St Augustine, where he desires his sense of those words, Jam. 2. 10. He that 
Tom. 9 p. 159.  keeps the whole Law, and offends in one point, is guilty of all. On which occasion he discourseth a great while, how one virtue may be found in them which yet are guilty of other sins, and so from one thing to another, not by way of defining, but by raising of difficulties to provoke St Augustine's solution of them.  
And on these terms he purposes his notion of virtue, that it is the loving of that which is to be loved, and is in some greater, in some less, in some none at all, and then adds, Plenissima verò, quae jam non possit augeri, quamdiu homo hîc vivit, est in nemine; quamdiu autem augeri potest, profectò illud quod minus est quam àebet, ex vitio est. Ex quo vitio non est justus in terrâ qui faciat bonum, & non peccet, etc. But the most full virtue, such as cannot be increased, is in no man as long as he lives here, But as long as it may be increased, that which is less than it ought to be, is faulty, whereby it is that the Scripture saith that there is not a just man on earth, which doth good and sinneth not; and, in thy sight shall no man living be justified; and, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves etc.  
By this view of the place it is evident that the virtue, which, on occasion of the place in St James, he speaks of, being an universal, impartial observation of the whole Law, and consequently every failing in that a vice (for to that all the proofs belong, that there is no man but sinneth sometimes) there is no reason to extend his speech any farther than to this, and then it will in no wise be appliable to our business, which is only of the degrees of this or that particular virtue, which it is certain that man may have, who yet is guilty of some sin in other particulars.  
This therefore I willingly acknowledge, that he that fails of any part of his duty, is therein faulty, or this is ex vitio in him, and if of that only S Hieromes words [quamdiu augeri potest] be understood (as it is most reasonable they should, whether we judge by the occasion, or the proofs of his speech, or by the express words, quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est, that which is less than it ought, i. e. less than he is bound to do, is faulty) then as I fully consent to the truth of them, so when that is granted, no man can hence infer, therefore every regular act of obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection, is a sin; for beside many other inconveniences formerly noted, this fresh one will be observable from St Hieromes own words, that then every act of virtue in this life is a sin, for as for that fullest perfection which cannot be increased, the beginning of this testimony acknowledgeth, that it is not to be found in any man in this life.  
In a word, the word Perfection is capable of two notions, either it may signify the perfect obedience of never sinning, and of this only St Hierome speaks, both when he saith it is not attained in this life, and when he adds, that whatsoever is less than this is sinful. Or else it may signify any higher degree of exercise of any particular virtue, chastity, mercy, fortitude, etc. And of this only it is that I speak (and St Hierome in the words cited from him appears not ever to have thought of it) and to this only my affirmation belongs, that there are degrees in that perfection, and that he that hath attained to any of those degrees, sins not against Christ's precept of perfection, though he was not arrived to the highest degree.  
But, saith he, the Doctor goes on, If there be any perfection attainable in this life, 'twill be capable of degrees and growth also] and then he adds, 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.  
Here I see the Reader may be abused, if I do not give him a true narration of my words in that place, §. 46. Having mentioned one interpretation of the perfection which Christ commands us to aspire to, Mat. 5. 48. viz. that it signifies mercifulness, Lu. 6. 36. I add, if that sense will not be admitted, yet if it be any perfection acquirable in this life, 'twill be capable of degrees and growth also. Now by a slight change of [if it be] into [if there be] this sense is quite altered and made liable to suspicion, that I teach perfection (I suppose he must mean the unsinning perfection spoken of by St Hierome) possible in this life, and to the charge of speaking evident contradictions, that I can talk of growth in such perfection.  
Truly there was little of justice in this, I hope he will be sensible of it. The perfection which I there speak of, be it love and mercy to enemies, or be it any other Christian duty set under precept by Christ, is certainly in some degree attainable in this life by them which have sinned, and do still sin through infirmity, in other things, and perhaps in some circumstances of this, and then I hope there can be no heresy in this, to say that by the grace of Christ one may obey such a precept of Christ's, love his enemies etc. when St Paul professeth unlimitedly he can do all things through Christ that strengthened him.  
And then what contradiction can there be in affirming that in this virtue of loving enemies, of mercy etc. there are degrees and consequently possibility of growth? Of mercy it hath oft been exemplified that it is so, and whatever particular virtue it be that can be fancied to be meant by Christ by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection, I doubt not but it will be as visible, when that virtue is named. But the Diatribist attempts nothing that way, only mistakes perfection for some other thing, either for a sinless perfection, or for such a state as cannot be increased, knowing well enough that that is not attainable in this life, and certainly is not the matter of Christ's precept, Mat. 5. and as certainly is not the perfection that there I speak of.  
Once more, what I said in this matter [that if the perfection (spoken of in the objection) be not acquirable in this life, 'tis certainly not under Evangelical precept now, citing that of Mat. 11. of Christ's light and supportable burden, and his commands not grievous, i. e. possible to be performed by us] falls under his very sharp discipline, This, saith he, is strong and strange confidence.  
His language I shall not only willingly bear with, but thank him for it; I shall only examine the reasons which he offers for thus accusing me. They are three, First, because the Law requires perfect obedience of Christians, as the rule of eternal righteousness, adding that all orthodox Divines have maintained this against the Church of Rome, Only the Doctor is of the Church of Rome's mind, and charges the Law with imperfection, citing it from Pract: Cat: p. 94.  
Here are many misadventures, I shall but name them, 1. That the Law requires perfect obedience of Christians, meaning by that the Mosaical Law, for that only, be knows, it is, which the Doctor chargeth with imperfection. The Law indeed sometimes signifies the Covenant of exact unsinning obedience, and of that Law or that Covenant it is most true that it required perfect, as that signifies unsinning obedience. But then 1. This was the first Covenant, and is not now in force with faithful penitent Christians, who are not under this Law but under grace, i. e. under a 2d Covenant which requires not innocence but repentance, sincere, not perfect obedience: And therefore 2dly. It cannot truly be said that this Law requires this perfect obedience of Christians, nor consequently that it is the rule of Evangelicall righteousness, i. e. of that righteousness by which believers are now said to be justified: I shall not insist on the proving of this here, because it is but a digression in this place, and is abundantly explicated elsewhere, in the Pract: Cat. concerning the two Covenants.  
2dly. That he makes this doctrine of the Law's requiring perfect obedience of Christians, to be one of the Doctrines maintained by the orthodox against the Church of Rome, when it is indeed but a contention of words, that the Diatribist (it seems) and some others have espoused against I know not what adversary.  
3dly. That the Doctors charging the Law with imperfection is a thing wherein he complies with the Church of Rome, when 'tis evident in that place of the Catech: that 1. The words of Christ that he came, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law, and 2. The many express examples of his doing so, in that 5t. of Mat. his additions to the Law in so many particulars introduced with [It was said of old— But I say unto you] and lastly, the uniform suffrage of all antiquity joining in this interpretation of Christ's words, was the ground whereon I built my affirmation, and if in this the Church of Rome were of my mind (as I do not find it is, making some of those additions, Mat. 5. counsels, not all of them precepts) I should never disclaim the doctrine upon that account, any more than the articles of the Creed, which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to believe with us.  
His 2d proof is, that the Gospel calls for the perfection of the law, Be ye perfect as he is perfect, Mat. 5. and be ye holy as he is holy, 1 Pet. 1. 15, 16. I answer, 1. this proves not his proposition, viz. that it was strong and strange confidence in me, to say, that if the perfection be not acquirable in this life, 'tis not now under Evangelical precept, Acquirable perfection may be (and some degree of it is) under precept, but unacquirable perfection is not. Christ's easy yoke is not now made up to us of impossible precepts. 2dly. That perfection in one of the places mentioned by him, appears to be mercifulness, and the holiness in the other, that of S. Peter being opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the former lusts, when they were in ignorance, respects either that sort of purity particularly, or however that more universal purity, which is now more severely required of all Christians, in an higher degree, than it had been under the Jewish oeconomy; and of either of these I never doubted, but they are now under Evangelical precept. But then still that is nothing to the higher degrees of those, or other Christian virtues, which all this while we speak of. No more is that which follows from the Doctor himself, saying that Christ came to perfect the Law. So he might do, and yet leave some degrees of mercy etc. free and not under precept, as hath oft been said.  
I shall not now take leisure to examine, with what truth he adds, that that perfection which Christ came to add is still the perfection of the Law, It is true, it was the requiring of what the law had not required, and so the adding more to it, and perfecting it as a law, requiring all that ever shall be required of men by law, or precept. But this concludes nothing against higher degrees of this very perfection, being still left free, and not under law, the only thing which now he contends against.  
His 3d proof is taken from the account I give in the Pract. Cat. p. 95. of the lightness and supportableness of Christ's burden, 1. in taking off the burden of unprofitable ceremonies, 2. in taking away the damning power of every least sin, etc. 3. in giving greater strength. From whence he concludes, It was not then, that he required not perfect holiness under the Gospel. I answer 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that this conclusion can with no Logic be thus deduced being à testimonio negatiuè. It is very possible there might be other reasons, beside those I there named, My mention of three being sufficient for the matter then in hand, did no way prejudge or exclude more. But then 2. I grant that this now mentioned, neither was, nor well could have been any part of my account of the easiness and supportableness of Christ's Evangelical burden, above that legal of Moses, because it was common both to the law of Moses and of Christ, that there were some degrees of perfection, which were by neither of them under Moses' law had place for freewill offerings, as well as Christ's, nay Christ's hath put some things under precept, as I conceive, which were not under precept by Moses' law, in this one respect there lies more weight on a Christian then did formerly on a jew, but that is abundantly recompensed by other respects, which this is not a season to enlarge upon.  
Having thus answered all his objections in this matter, it will I hope be consequent, that he hath not yet demonstrated the truth of that assertion, which from what he hath said he assumes to be apparently and visibly true, viz. that every man is bound to do that which is best, because the law and the Gospel also require perfection of obedience in every commandment; For to this I have oft replied, that both of them require perfect obedience to all, that either of them requires, which notwithstanding there are still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under both, which no precept either of law or Gospel requires, or puts under necessity of obligation to any.  
The falseness of that proposition, that every man is bound to do that which is best, I had formerly evidenced by two means, 1. the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 38. he that marries doth well, but he that marrieth not doth better, 2. by this, that the best being a superlative, supposes the positive, which is lower than that, to be yet good, etc.  
To these he will now apply answer; To the first, that well and better there, do not refer to moral goodness but worldly good, for the preventing of troubles in those afflicted and persecuting times. But this answer will be soon shaken asunder, 1. by considering that as the well and better do certainly belong to the same kind of good, so it is visible that the well cannot belong to the worldly but moral good, and then consequently the better must do so too. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth well, belongs to moral goodness, is evident by v. 28. where advising them that are loosed from marriage, not to marry, he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but and if, or, though thou do marry, thou sinnest not, and if the virgin marry, she sinneth not, What can be more clear than that the doing well is not sinning, and sure that is a moral, not only a worldly good.  
Nay 2. the Apostle is as express that the marrying is quite contrary to the worldly good, for having said, that they that marry sin not, he adds immediately v. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but such shall have trouble to the flesh, and what can be more contrary to worldly good? But yet farther 3. the Apostle sets down the advantages of not marrying v. 32. the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord how he may please the Lord and the unmarried woman in like manner that she may be holy both in body and spirit v. 34. whereas the married man cares for the things of the world how he may please his wife, and the woman in like manner how she may please her husband; And then are not these spiritual (not barely worldly) advantages, and is not the holiness of both body and spirit, and the caring for the things of the Lord, a greater moral or rather spiritual good, than the bare caring for the things of the world, to please a yoke-fellow? I hope I need say no more on this; nor sure on that which he next adds, that if the person have not the gift of continence, it is then not only good but necessary for him to marry, for he knows that as S. Paul spoke of him that had that gift, when he saith he doth better, so I that only cited S. Paul's words, must be resolved to speak also. But as long as of him that hath that gift, i. e. hath power of his own will, it is true, that if he marry, he doth well, i. e. sinneth not, but yet doth better if he do not marry, it is evident that I have all that I pretend to, and certainly this is given me by S. Paul's words.  
To my 2d argument that the best being superlative, supposes the positive to be good, he replies [I hope the Doctor will not deny but works done by Faith are good, and yet that they are not perfect in this life, i. e. come short of what we are bound to by the Gospel, will he now say they are evil?] I answer, I will not say they are evil, but they are good though not perfect from all possible mixture of sin. And what now he can gain from this his question thus answered by me, as he expects I should answer it, it will not be easy for any man to imagine, For sure this is the confirming not the disproving of my argument, For by his own setting it, it is manifest, that those things are not evil, which yet are capable of a greater perfection, and then the perfection being the superlative the positive is supposed to be good, and not evil, and yet evil it must have been, if every thing which is inferior to the most perfect, were sin, or if the highest perfection were under Precept.  
What he adds out of Gregory, that all humane justice is convinced to be injustice, if it be strictly judged] is 1. contrary to his former question to me [will he now say they are evil?] whatsoever the Doctor think, the Diatribist it seems will say they are convinced to be injustice, and that, I must suppose, is evil, (and is not this great inconstancy in him?) 2. It is of no force against my pretensions, for when I said, such a thing is good, and another best, I never meant that either of them is not convincible by Gods strict judgement to have some mixture of evil, but that the evil which is or may be adherent to it in some other respect (as of all humane actions is acknowledged) being pardoned by God in Christ, the lower degree being good, i. e. an act of obedience to Christ's command, that which is higher and so better than that, may yet be somewhat which he hath not commanded, and so still a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Christian. And thus much on occasion of the several degrees, and passages of my answer to the first objection, which I foresaw, that which was taken from the consideration of what Prudence might advise and seem to require of us, which hath proved a business of some length.   

Sect. 9 My answer to a second sort of objection, vindicated. Loving God with all the heart. Adam's love in innocency capable of degrees. Perfect love that casts out fear, to be had in this life. Christ more intense in prayer at one time then another, an argument that all is not sin that is less than the highest.  
TO the 2d objection from those large comprehensive words, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc. I answered thus, that that phrase [with all etc.] denoted only two things, 1. The sincerity of this Love of God, as opposed to partial, divided love, (to which I now add for farther explication, that what we do according to the precepts of God's Law, we do out of love toward God, not hypocritically, or as by constraint; and 2. not admitting any thing else into competition with him, this sincere love of God, mean while being capable of degrees, so that it is very possible for two men to love God with all the heart, and yet one to love him more intensely than another (as was exemplified among the very Angels) nay for the same person, which so loves him, to love him, and express that love more intensely at one time then another, as appeared by the example of Christ, Lu. 22. 44.  
Now to this he replies: that these two are there required, but not only these, but perfect love, such as casts out fear, 1 Joh. 4. 18. such as was in Adam in innocency; To which I need say no more than what hath formerly been said, that even that perfect love which was in Adam in innocence, consisted not in any indivisible point, but had a latitude, and consequently several degrees of that perfect love. But then withal it must be remembered that the perfect love, 1 Joh. 4. 18. is not all one with that which Adam had in innocence, for that he confesseth is not acquirable in this life, whereas the love in St John that casts out fear is in every Confessor, and Martyr for Christ, and is elsewhere styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, love of Christ in sincerity, Eph. 6. 24. in the notion wherein perfection is all one with sincerity; But then this also is capable of degrees, one Martyr or Confessor may be more zealous, & express more intense and fervent love, than another doth.  
What he adds, and confirms out of Hierome, was in one part answered before, and must not now be repeated; As for the other, it may answer itself, one part being directly contrary, if not contradictory to the other; For when he hath admitted and allowed of the supposition, that sincere love is capable of degrees either in one man at several times, or in two men at the same time, and so both obey the precept, yet, saith he, those degrees argue love not to be perfect, and so far faulty in vitio,] But sure if those of whom the supposition is made, do both obey the precept, than they do not offend against it; if they do not offend against it, then is not this faulty, or in vitio, for sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law. The evidence of the matter may, it seems, extort some few words of truth from a gainsayer, though to acknowledge it entirely and constantly, it must not be expected.  
In the next place he passeth to the enforcement of my argument from what we read concerning Christ himself, that he was more intense in prayer at one time then another, when yet the lower degree was sure no sin; and prepares to make answer to it, viz. that Christ was above the Law, and did more than the Law required, but men fall short many degrees of what is required.  
But sure this answer is nothing to the matter now in hand, for the evidencing of which that example of Christ was brought by me, viz. that sincere love is capable of degrees, This was first showed in several men, and in the same man at several times, in the several ranks of Angels, and at last in Christ himself, more ardent in one act of prayer then in another; wherein what is affirmed of Christ is common to Angels and men, and so still may be though he differ from them in other things, to wit, that he is perfect and never sins, though men be imperfect and faulty, the best of them, For still it must be remembered, that it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude, and hath degrees, but sincerity of this or that virtue, expressed in this or that performance, and as this, though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the suppositum (the man in whom it is) yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that act (for it is certain that I may in an act of mercy, give as much as any Law obligeth me to give, and so not sin in giving too little) so to this, his, answer belongs not at all, nor shows any difference or reason why such sincerity may not in any pious Christian, be capable of degrees, as well as in Christ himself, and the lowest of them be sinless, and all the Superior, voluntary oblations, more than the strict Law required of us.  
Suppose a man should in one ejaculation, pray to God sincerely and ardently, to avert an evil from him, I shall ask, whether he commit any sin in respect of ardency? If it be answered, yes, he doth, in case it be possible for him, or any man else, or Adam in Paradise, to pray more ardently, I shall then hope I shall have refuted his answer, by the example of Christ, who when he prayed ardently, did not sin, though he fell short of that higher degree, which after that we find he used.  
As for that which alone he adds in this matter, that the example of Christ holds forth, that great pressures call for inlargements of affections, not as voluntary oblations, but as duties. I shall only ask whether they did so call for that very degree of enlargement, which Christ at last used, If it did not, than it seems this addition was little to the purpose, If he shall say it did, then how could he even now say, that Christ did supererogate in this particular, and that it was not appliable to men.   

Sect. 10. My answer to the last objection, of Supererogation. A place in St Cyprian vindicated from the Romanists reading. Imputare. An act of mercy in God that our works are rewarded. Supererogation wherein it consists. The Diatribist's etymology of the word disproved. Erogare. Erogatio. The Diatribists ways of Supererogating. Pride, Glorying. More reward for eminent uncommanded excellencies superadded to duty. The Diatribists charity, and confession of us. His censure of the Bishop's unjust.  
Now follows my answer to the last objection freeing this doctrine of voluntary oblations, or of doing somewhat which is free and uncommanded, from all lyableness to the suspicion of being favourable to the doctrine of Supererogation among the Romanists, which is founded in their opinion that a man may by these performances make satisfaction for his own and other men's sins, which I that no way believe or acknowledge, cannot be charged as guilty of that opinion.  
And to what is there said, I must suppose with some evidence, §. 51, 52, 53. I shall here add, and apply one considerable saying of St Cyprian's in the Epistle ad Lapsos, telling them that Qui in Ecclesiâ semper gloriosi & granditer operati sunt, opus suum Domino nunquam imputaverunt, Those which have through all times wrought gloriously and heroically in the Church, yet never thought their Master beholden to them. That is the meaning of imputare to reckon their layings out & charge him with whom they reckon to be in their debt. For want of understanding of which (or from some worse principle) the latter edition of St Cyprian by Pamelius leaves out the word [nunquam, never] which the old Basil edition doth retain, and the sense evidently requires in that place.  
By this (which is my full sense in this matter) and by what is already said in that treatise, that objection is wholly superseded, for I do not pretend that God becomes a debtor to any man for any of his most bountiful spontaneous oblations, but that 'tis an act of infinite mercy in God, as the Psalmist saith, that any the most excellent work of ours is rewardable with him. And that partly because we being sinners, the utmost we can ever do, can never make satisfaction for our sins, and partly because whatsoever degree of perfection either by doing or suffering we can aspire to, 1. It is still a work of God's good grace and strength in us, (for what hast thou which thou hast not received? and than what place for glorying?) and 2. It is in no degree meet or worthy to be compared, bears no proportion to the glory which shall be revealed, and partly again, because God wants neither our obedience, nor our richest performances, we only are like to receive the benefit of them, and so we only are debtors to ourselves, and can claim nothing from him, save only on the account of mere mercy.  
Now in his reply, the first thing that he objects, is that this distinction betwixt doing more than is commanded, and doing something which is not commanded, is new, and sometimes coincident for he (saith he) that doth somewhat not commanded, doth also somewhat more than is commanded. And because he cannot but know my notion there of doing something more, viz. doing all, and and more than all, he therefore presseth it farther, that in this sense the Romanists in their supererogation do not suppose that he which supererogates hath done all that is commanded him.  
To this I answer, by yielding that the Romanist is not so gross, as to affirm him that supererogates not to have sinned, And therefore I never defined that to be the Romanists doctrine, or that our doctrine was by that one distinction, differenced from theirs, but having by way of foundation laid that distinction (as will appear to any that shall view the place §. 51.) I make the notion of supererogation to be founded in one of these two, either in having paid all that is due (i. e. having never sinned) or 2. (having been a debtor, i. e. a sinner) in paying that debt by satisfaction, And the latter of these two it was, and not the former, wherein I placed the Romanists opinion, and wherein I conceived the doctrine of freewill oblations under the Gospel to differ from their doctrine of supererogating, as appears §. 52. And this he sees, and sets down in his next words, It was but the multiplying of my lines, and his own, that he could not earlier take notice of it.  
To this 2d then at length after some prooeme he will proceed; that still I cannot free my doctrine from some kind of supererogation, for, saith he, such works have not their denomination from satisfaction made by them, but they are therefore called satisfactions, because they are something more than the law required, supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex.  
By this at length appears what bottom all this Diatribists structure is built on, the extraordinary etymology which his fancy, or somewhat else hath suggested to him, of the word supererogation, which if it should hold, I (after all this debate thus far prolonged) am obliged to yield the cause to the Diatribist, thus far at least, that I were a friend to one word made use of by the Romanists. But I am so well assured of this Diatribists failings in this kind, by the experience of his super statutum, from whence he would have superstition deduced (and lost his chief hold, when that origination of the word was wrested from him) that I may be allowed again to question his skill in that faculty. That erogare signifies to lay out (and not to require) is evident enough, erogare pecuniam in classem, to lay out money upon the navy, is Cicero's phrase, pro Flacco, erogare pecunias ex aerario, in his Oration in Vatinium, erogare in oleum, in Pliny Ep. 240. joined with confer in operibus balnei, unde in eos sumptus pecunia erogaretur, in Livy l. 1. and the substantive erogatio for expending or laying out, erogatio pecuniae in Cicero ad Atticum l. 15. 32. Tot impendiis, tot erogationibus, saith Pliny in his Panegyric, and in Suetonius 'tis explained by largitio, and profusio pecuniarum.  
And accordingly supererogo is to lay out all and more, and from the opinion of pious men's doing so, the Romanists have clearly raised their treasure of the Church, as the bank into which these payments are made. I could not have expected that there should be any question made of this; As it is, I hope this will satisfy it, And then alas what a remote, unhappy etymology hath this Diatribist fallen on, supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex! Had he been pleased to have englished this latin, the mistake had been too visible, and therefore that was more prudently omitted; For what can erogavit signify in that period of his? Required? (so he renders it in the following period, works, saith he, may be said supererogare, when men think they have done more than the law required) But 1. that is in no wise the meaning of the word, as hath already been manifested; 2. whatsoever it shall be resolved to signify, yet in this way of etymology, the erogavit belongs to the law, whereas we know in the use of the word among all Romish writers it is the man or the works (not the law) which erogates, i. e. lays out his money, pains, life, etc. and proportionably which supererogates. 3. (and which is yet more gross) the supper must in this etymology be assigned to the man, as the erogating to the law, and so the one word be divided betwixt them, the law must be said to erogate, the man to super, and what is that, either nothing, or else to supererogate, and yet that he cannot do in any sense wherein the law could be said to erogate. Thus (beyond all either reason or grammar) incongruous, and inconsistent is this etymology.  
And this being said concerning the nature of the word, all that remains of his exercitation, being built upon this mistake, is perfectly superseded, yet I shall attend him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In many respects, saith he, such works may be said to supererogate, 1. 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) To this I answer, 1. that by his own confession these which he now mentions, are not supererogatory works, but the contrary, why then doth he set them as a first instance of the many respects in which such works may be said to supererogate? 2. When he knows, that that treatise of mine, on which he exercises his discipline, doth not defend the thinking a man's self to do more than the law requires, but precisely (in distinction from that) to do somewhat which the law doth not require, why should he still confound things thus severed, and lay that to my charge which he knows I am not guilty of? 3. There is no truth in his suggestion, that this doctrine as it is taught by me, is derogatory to, or lays imperfection to the law of God.  
For if by the law of God, he mean the Mosaical law, then though from Christ's own words I conclude that he came to fill it up, or perfect it, and so that it had in it before vacuities and imperfections, yet the doctrine of the treatise of Will-worship, is no way founded or concerned in that; As for the law of Christ, under which, as well as under the law of the Jews, some things are left free and uncommanded (and consequently I affirm it possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him) I never accused that of imperfection, but do without all doubting suppose it to be a perfect codex of commands, to which God will never add more; and when I have done so, I found this doctrine of the Christians voluntary oblations, in this perfection (not imperfection) of this law, viz. that even in the greatest perfection there is a latitude, and the higher degrees of that latitude are not under precept.  
A 2d way of supererogating he mentions in respect to other men, as the Pharisee that said with scorn and pride enough, I am not like other men, I fast twice a week, etc. To this I answer, 1. that this as little belongs to the true, as it doth to his false notion of supererogating. For in neither of them doth the supper include or intimate superiority above other men, and 2. that he that thus scorns and exalts himself above other men, is far from doing more herein then is commanded, 'tis evident he comes short of very duty in an eminent most rewardable virtue, that of humility, wherein he that strives not to exceed as much, and more, as in any voluntary oblations, 'tis evident that he is no good Christian, and I never undertook to plead for such Pharisees, but of all others think Christians obliged to use all diligence to avert this shipwreck.  
And yet 3. the Apostle himself both by his doctrine and practice, allows of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that signifies literally a glorying, but it is certainly an humble rejoicing, in having done things which he knows are eminently acceptable to God, and elsewhere, rejoicing in his own work, and as this is no way increasable to a Christian by comparing it with other men's defects or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for his charity makes him passionately wish, and his humility really think all others better than himself, so it is very far from that scorn and pride in all Pharisees which makes them discriminate themselves from other men.  
The 3d way he mentions is, with respect to the overpleasing and acceptance of God, when they that think they can do something not commanded, expect to find more acceptance from God than they themselves or other do for doing only what is commanded. To this I answer, 1 That still this is nothing to the notion of the word supererogating, (which sure signifies not overpleasing) 2. That if one caution be taken in, viz. that uncommanded works can never satisfy for disobediences, and consequently that it is perfect impiety and folly to neglect any duty, on one side, and then to think to compensate that by doing more than is commanded, on the other side: If I say, this caution he premised, and proportionably the earlyest and principallest care be taken to secure duty, to make good obedience, in cannot be amiss in the next place to superadd this other care of the most eminent heroical (uncommanded) performances, and he that shall have observed this method uprightly, eschewed evil, in a strict mortifying of lusts etc. in abstaining from sin, and doing all that is commanded (as,  
Virtus est vitium fugere, & Sapientia prima  
Stultitiâ caruisse—)  
And whensoever he hath failed, secured his retreat by an early humiliation, confession, begging of pardon in Christ, and sincere reformation, and then laboured industriously to superstruct doing of good, works of the more eminent (I mean uncommanded) degrees of virtue, I shall not doubt to encourage him, to think confidently, and expect from our great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more and greater acceptance (I shall add, reward also) then the same person could in reason expect for doing only what is commanded.  
And though it be not best for him in this case to compare himself with other men, the possible hazard of that, exemplified by the Pharisee, persuading the contrary, yet of the truth of the success there is no reason to make question, or suspect, but that of two men which have been equal in obediences, one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection, the more perfect shall have the richest reward, as is most evident whether by considering the degrees of glory in heaven, or the rule by which God distributes them still under the Gospel, by way of reward to every man, secundum opera, according to his works.  
What he adds of Papists thinking they can merit with God by such works for themselves and others, though ours, saith he, are not come so far yet] is an essay of his charitable opinion of us; and I shall take it by the best handle I can, and conclude from it, then, by his own confession, we are not Papists yet, and then I do not (after all that tract of Will-worship) maintain works of Supererogation yet, and then I need only add, that 'tis no way useful for him to lose his pains and his charity by confuting those of whom he only divineth that they may hereafter fall into false doctrine, which yet I hope I shall not do, having no temptation from all this Diatribist's Exercitation, and the arguments therein contained, to fly to any other Sect of Religion to furnish myself with answers for him.  
What now remains in the shutting up this 2d. Exercitation, is wholly spent either in proving it to be my doctrine (which I willingly and expressly grant it to be) that the voluntary oblations are more acceptable and rewardable with God, or in repeating his own sense, the more voluntary the more abominable (wherein it seems we are already at distance enough, a man need not fly to the Papists doctrine of Supererogation to make the breach the wider) or in charging on this doctrine that it makes Superstitious Will-worshippers and formalists to overlook others with abundance of contempt and insolence, adding Characters, by which we may discern who they are to whom he is pleased to affix these titles.  
To which my answer is 1. with St Paul, Rom. 14. that as those which freely do those things which others account unlawful, ought not to despise those which do them not; so on the other side, those which do them not, ought in no wise to judge or condemn those which do them, and consequently that if our Bishops, whom he seems to translate, those who did overlook others, had really been guilty of contempt and insolence toward them, yet had not this been more criminous in them, more contrary to St Paul's direction, than this which is here visible in this Diatribist, in calling them Superstitious Will-worshippers, and Formalists, which first presumes all use of uncommanded ceremonies to be Superstition first, and then Formality: and so is a double untruth, and 2. charges those two great sins upon his own Lawful Superiors, and so is a double uncharitableness, attended with disobedience to and separation from them: I delight not now to compare these sins, and affirm, which is more culpable; If his own plain words or conscience do not accuse this Diatribist in any of these, neither shall I accuse him, but rather implore God's pardon for him; And only add 2. That I have reason to hope and believe that the Governors of our Church, and those who lately presided in it, did not make their own voluntary performances the foundation or occasion of any degree of contempt or insolence towards others which used them not; If any did, I neither intended nor now design any defence for them: And so much for the 2d Exercitation.    

CHAP. VII. Of Christmas and other Festivals.  

Sect. 1. The observance which is due to the Custom of a Church. The Testimonies of Ambrose, and Augustine, and Isidore.  
IN our entrance on the discourse of Festivals, I had thought that the customary practice of the universal Church of Christ, and particularly the perpetual immemorial usage of the Church of England, continued, as far as we can discern, from the first plantation, without any interruption, to the time of writing that treatise, might have had some weight with any that were not contentious, if it were but upon the account of S. Paul's argument thus drawn from the customary practice of the Churches of God.  
On occasion hereof the Diatribist falls presently into the examination of that place where S. Paul useth that argument 1 Cor. 11. 16. and inquires what inferences naturally arise from the words of the Apostle. But I who designed to conclude no more from that reference but only this, that the custom of the Church ought to be of some force and weight with any meek son of the Church, have no need of following him into that inquiry, if the losest consideration and very first view of those words do not prove that, neither shall I farther contend for it.  
Paul argued from custom, and I proposed the like argument, and so made a reference to S. Paul, whose example I thus far transcribed, and if in other respects the analogy held not, it matters not, so it held in this, that custom was considerable in circumstances of religion, such was covering or not covering the head in the service of God there, and such is the observation of a Festival here; And this is all that I need reply to his first §.  
Yet I shall ex abundanti add one or two testimonies for the confirming the weakest part of that consideration, viz. the reasonableness of complying with, (so as not to oppose) the custom of any particular Church, though they be no more than so, though they pretend not to be derived from the Apostles, whether by institution or practice, supposing withal that they are no way contrary thereto.  
And 1. We have the words of St Ambrose, sufficiently known. Ad quamcunque Ecclesiam veneritis, ejus morem servate, si pati scandalum non vultis aut facere; To whatsoever Church ye come, observe the custom thereof, if you will neither receive nor give scandal.  
2dly. The (as clear) words of 
Ep. 28. Tom: 1. p. 69.  St Augustine, Ego te illud breviter admonendum puto, traditiones Ecclesiasticas (praesertim quae fidei non officiunt) ita observandas ut à majoribus traditae sunt, nec aliorum consuetudinem aliorum contrario more subverti. I would briefly admonish you that Ecclesiastical traditions (especially such as offend not the faith) are so to be observed as they are delivered by our Ancestors, nor must the custom of some be subverted by the contrary custom of others. And yet higher in the same Epistle, Vnaquaeque provincia praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur, Let every Province esteem the precepts of their Ancestors as Apostolical Laws, i. e. certainly pay observance to them, though they be not of Apostolical institution.  
So Isidore, l. 2. de Eccl: office: c. 43. Nec disciplina in his melior est gravi prudentique Christiano, nisi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Ecclesiam ad quam devenerit. There is no better rule in such things for a grave and prudent Christian, then to do in that manner as he sees the Church do to which he comes.  
Store of suffrages might be heaped up on this occasion; these few may suffice to justify all that I had said in that first §.   

Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity.  
THE 2d §. had proposed one argument for the antiquity of this usage among us, founded in the adversaries suggestion against it. The adversaries generally accuse the Christmas Festivity for some heathenish mixtures retained in it; From which, if it were true, or however from the concession of those that affirmed it, I conceived an argument might be drawn, that therefore it was to be taken as granted, that this usage was continued among us from the time of our first conversion from heathenism.  
And I cannot yet see how this inference can be avoided; For how can any heathen usage adhere to this Festivity, if all heathen customs were laid aside long before this Festival were observed? Can it be imagined that after the ejecting of heathenism and the solemn abolition of all their feasts, Saturnalia and the like, when Christianity had gotten the possession, there should still continue among them those adherent rites of their heathen feasts, so many accidents without their subjects? Or that Christians that had long since renounced heathenism, and at length received this Christian feast, should ransack their heathen rituals for ceremonies wherewith to adorn it?  
But this, it seems, is of no force, or (as he saith) no way constringent with this Diatribist; For, saith he, they might be added 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 the celebration of festivals. As the like was done to win the Jews in observing the old sabbath, Pentecost, etc.  
But sure there is little force in this evasion; For 1. it is by this answer confessed, that as to some parts of this Island, my argument is of force, and that in those this festival was introduced as early as their Christianity, and if that may be granted me, I shall contend for no more by this medium, but think I have gained a very fair confession for the antiquity of this usage in this Church, that this festivity was thus early introduced among us, even as soon, if not before Christianity had gotten possession of this whole Nation.  
Meanwhile, that the Nation was not converted the several parts of it together (I mean not every person of every part, but some of all) or that there was any such interstitium or interval considerable betwixt the conversion of some part of this Island and the rest of it, this is incumbent on the Diatribist to prove, or else the argument remains in full force to the whole Nation, as well as to any part of it. And for this he hath offered no proof, and so hath yielded the force of my argument, when he went about to refute it.  
2dly The example of the Christians complying with the Jews, will stand him in as little stead; for when was it that the Christians thus complied with the Jews, or that they retained their old sabbath, out of that design of compliance with them? Was it not at the time of the first conversion of the Jews to Christianity? Can it be imagined that the Jews were a good while before converted to the faith and to the doctrine of the abolition of the sabbath, and then, some good while after that their conversion, the observation of their sabbath should be reduced, expostliminio?  
Would not this be a constringent argument to any gainsayer to prove that baptism was introduced at the first beginnings of Christianity, because baptism is known to be a custom taken from the Jews? And so sure of the sabbath, and the like; If any space or interval had come in after the planting of Christianity among the Jews, it is no way probable that the sabbath once laid aside, as a ceremony nailed to the cross of Christ, would ever after have been recalled, and observed among Christians; only at the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian, though they were not taught by Christianity, and so some others from the heathen also, 'tis possible and imaginable; but 'tis no way supposeable after the space of many years, when heathenism with all its rites and adherents had long ago been cast out.  
And let this serve for his 2d §. The matter is not so weighty (being but an argumentum ad homines) as to deserve any greater length of discourse to vindicate it.   

Sect. 3. Of Crescens coming into France, and Simon Zelotes into England. The difference of keeping Easter in the West and East. Testimonies for our conversion in the Apostles times, Before King Lucius. The Diatribists suggestion disproved. Britain not converted from Rome.  
COncerning the first planting of Christianity in this Nation by some Apostle or Apostolical person, what was said with competent probability out of our histories, is considered by the Diatribist in the next place, but nothing said or offered to be proved by him, which may exact answer from me, the whole matter especially being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business of Festivals: only some passages of his must be shortly noted.  
As 1. when from my saying that Crescens his being in France removes all improbability from those histories that record the plantation of Christianity in these Islands in the Apostles time's] he seems to believe it my opinion that Crescens came over hither, (for so, saith he, the Doctor would have it, and proves it out of Scripture) which very thing he knows I absolutely disclaim, and only conclude it as credible that some other Apostle or Apostolical person should so early come over hither and plant the Faith, as that Crescens should come into France in S. Paul's days, which yet the French generally believe that he did, and have received it by tradition, and the words of Scripture may very fitly be so interpreted as to affirm it (and I do not believe that Estius hath, or that this Diatribist can demonstrate the contrary, I am sure he hath here produced nothing toward it, but the bare name of Estius.  
That Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes was the person that first planted the faith here, I receive from our Stories by tradition, and accordingly satisfy myself therewith, and never attribute it to Crescens or any other, but particularly express my reasons why I cannot imagine it to be Crescens, and therefore am very much misreported in this matter.  
All that I had to do with Crescens in that place was only this, that from the authority of the relations of Crescens' coming so early into France, I thought I might conclude against the improbability of joseph's or Simons coming hither, the latter being perfectly as credible as the former, and the passage from France to England so short and easy, that there can be no difficulty or disparity in the matter, that one should be believed by the French, and the other be incredible to us. This was set down intelligibly enough in that treatise, if the Diatribists haste or somewhat else had not cast the cloud over it.  
Secondly, when from the time of celebrating Easter anciently in this Nation I conclude that neither Peter nor Paul nor Crescens did first bring the Faith into this Island, and the Diatribist thinks he hath thereby gained an advantage, and that the same reason is of force against Joseph and Simon Zelotes also, this is an evident mistake in him. For it is sufficiently known that as the Western custom of keeping Easter was deduced from S. Peter and S. Paul, so the contrary Eastern observation pretended to tradition from other Apostles, particularly from S. John. Now as to the former of these it is consequent, that none of the associates or attendants of S. Paul or S. Peter were the planters of the Faith here (and so not Crescens, who was such, 2 Tim. 4. 11.) because of those it is not imaginable that they should vary from the custom received from those two Apostles, as 'tis apparent the first Christian's here did, in the celebrating of Easter; so it is no way conclusible of all others, which related not to those two Apostles, and such I suppose Joseph and Simon Zelotes were, it being very possible that either of these might comply with the Jewish account, and accord with S. John, and the Eastern Church in this celebration.  
And accordingly as by this indication it appears, that the words of Metaphrastes concerning Simon Peter's preaching the faith, and constituting Churches etc. in Britain in the 12th of Nero, cannot be deemed to have truth in them, so if it may be supposed that Metaphrastes, receiving his intelligence from some more ancient author or tradition, mistook Simon Peter for Simon Zelotes, I see not what could be objected against the probability of the relation. either in respect of the person of that Simon, who is by very good Authors deemed to have been the planter of the faith here, or in respect of the earliness of the plantation, in or before the 12th of Nero, i. e. within 34 years after Christ's ascension.  
To this matter of the antiquity of the faith in this Island, and that particularly by this Simon Zelotes, I shall now add some few considerations: First out of the 
See Sir H. Spelman De Exord. Christ. Rel. in Brit. p. 2.  words of Theodoret in his Therapeut: Ser: 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where having compared the Apostles of Christ, under the title of 
p. 123.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our fishermen and Publicans, with the Lawgivers of the Grecians and Romans, he affirms that whereas these latter did not persuade or gain upon their next neighbours to live according to their laws, those former wrought upon not only Grecians and Romans, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the nations of the Barbarians (among which we know the Britain's were vulgarly contained) and brought them to embrace the Evangelical law; and if this be yet too general, he than adds the enumeration of the severals, and among them by name specifies the Britain's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
p. 125.  A clear testimony that the Apostles themselves in person paid this obedience to Christ's command of going to all nations, none excepted, and that with some kind of success every where, particularly here in Britain.  
2dly From the express words of 
Hist. Eccl: l. 2. c. 40.  Nicephorus Callistus, who setting down the several plantations of the Apostles, hath these words of Simon Zelotes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After the coming of the holy Ghost upon him, he betook himself to Egypt, and Cyrene, and afric, and passing through Mauritania and Lybia in the preaching of the Gospel, and adventuring on the Western Ocean, and preaching the Gospel to the British Islands, and depredicating Christ as was needful both by many signs and wonders, and by divinity and doctrine, and being tried with many afflictions, at last with endless joy embracing the death of the cross he departed to his Master. Which last passage of his death, that it belonged to these Islands also, is affirmed by Dorotheus, who adds that he was slain and buried here, and thereto accord the Greek Liturgies in their Menelogie, though Baronius and others descent in that particular of his death.  
Thirdly, That Gildas Brito or Badonicus, who affirms that Christ was preached to Britanny (under the name of glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae) summo Tiberii Caesaris, in the last year of Tiberius Caesar, i. e. in the fifth year after Christ's resurrection, is by Sir Hen: Spelman cited as author gravis & eximiae fidei, a grave author and of great fidelity, anciently styled Sapiens, The wise, and so agreeing with these former testimonies, may deserve to be heeded by us, and not cast off, as by the Diatribist he is, magisterially dictating, that his affirmation was mere tradition and far from probability, but not adding the least proof of it, but only that no authors of any credit lay it so high, with what truth, doth now competently appear, and is yet farther confirmed by a former testimony brought by Mr. Fox out of Gildas Albanicus in his book of the victory of Aurelius Ambrose, where he affirms 
p. 107.  Britanny received the Gospel in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. To this acordeth also the Vatican MS. out of which Baronius placeth the reception of the Faith in this Island about the year 35. which is two years earlier than the last of Tiberius.  
For other passages to the same purpose, especially for the relations of Joseph of Arimathea in Guil: Malmesbur: I refer the Reader to that worthy Antiquary, Sir Henry Spelman, de exord: p. 4. etc. And whatever the Diatribist suggests, I see not indeed in any or all of this the least degree of either impossibility or improbability; For of those Apostles that immediately after Christ's ascension took their journeys to several corners of the world, to publish and propagate the Gospel, what difficulty is there in believing, that in the space of four or five years, some one either by himself, or by his missive, at least that the tidings of that blessed news, should find the way hither into this Island? I shall now add no more of this.  
Lastly, when in the setting and translating the supposed words of Eleutherius to King Lucius, the Diatribist chargeth me for leaving out or not translating nuper (which the Latin in my margin retained) adding that I did it wisely (I suppose on some design to assist my cause) and leaving others to judge why it was done; this is but a calumny all this while.  
For 1. having (as he acknowledges) set down the word nuper in the margin, that was a fair evidence to any charitable person that there was no treachery designed the Reader, for it being certainly foreseen by me that my Readers would easily understand so much Latin as the rendering of nuper would amount to, I had been by any such design engaged to conceal the Latin also, the setting down that, was the certain way of discovering any such supposeable treachery, and so sure no artifice or master piece of wisdom (which the Diatribist imputes to me) but at once an act and punishment of folly such as I heartily desire may always attend such enterprises.  
But I need not such prelusorie answers as these, the matter is plain to any man that hath eyes in his head; My English translation was not verbum verbo, yet by way of paraphrase perfectly answerable to the Latin, the Latin is, Suscepistis nuper miseratione divinâ in regno Brittanniae legem & fidem Christi, and the English is as explicit to every minute part of it, that before that writing of his (is not that the full paraphrase of nuper, without defining what is not there defined, how long, or how little while ago this was, but only before the writing of Elutherius' Epistle) the kingdom of Britain had received by God's mercy the law and faith of Christ. I see there is no hope of approving myself to this Diatribist, If there were, I should not have fallen thus causelessly under his severest discipline, for such I must esteem this his suggestion, and the insinuations accompanying it.  
And yet after all this, if I had done the utmost which he can suppose, viz. not rendering nuper at all, on purpose that this conversion of the Island might be thought to be long before the time of Lucius and Eleutherius, which was above 140 years after Tiberius' decease, I hope it is by this time plain by what hath here been said of our conversion by some Apostle, particularly by Simon Zelotes, that I should not much have abused the Reader. That the faith was not first preached in Lucius' days, but revived after the death of the first planters of it, I refer the Reader to learn from Sir Henry Spelman p. 12. out of our ancient records: And for the truth of the passages between Eleutherius and Lucius, as I never had engaged myself, so if from thence, as the Diatribist pretends, any inconveniences be now found consequent toward the support of the Romanists plea to our subjection, it will be his (not my) concernment to fence himself against them, having here thus far acknowledged the truth of the story that Lucius sent to Eleutherius for some to baptise him and his people, withal from hence concluding that Christianity was not here planted from the Apostles times.  
And here let me add in reference to his sixth §. that if I should yield what here he doth, that this Nation first received baptism not from any Apostle or Apostolical planter, but in Lucius' days from Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, it could not well be imagined how our ancient British should be found so different from the usages of Rome in the celebration of Easter etc. as it is known they were before, and at the time of Augustine's coming hither. For certainly the Western manner was conveyed to all who had their Christianity or baptism from Rome.  
And indeed, as to the other concernment, what would it avail us to prove that we had not our Christianity first from Rome in Augustine's time, if we be yielded to have had it first from Rome in Eleutherius' time? I desire the Diatribist, which even now foresaw the danger, will now see to it.  
What to this he saith (viz. that the Eastern Christians which kept their Easter after the Jewish manner, kept it not so in the Apostles times) is neither proved to have any truth in it, nor if it had, would it give any account of the reason of the British retaining the Jewish and Eastern custom, in case they had their baptism from Eleutherius, for as to the latter of these, though this difference were granted to be of a later original than the Apostles times, yet what possibility were there that the British should have the Eastern Jewish custom from Rome, when the Romish was constantly the contrary, or that receiving Baptism from Rome, we should have our most ancient rites from Greece, quite contrary to the usages of Rome.   

Sect. 4. The keeping of Easter in the Apostles times. Polycrates 's Epistle to Victor. The Asiatic way from Philip and John. From Philip derived to Britanny. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The testimony of Socrates against Festivals, examined.  
AS for the truth of his negation §. 6. that the Eastern Christians which kept their Easter after the Jewish manner, kept it not so in the Apostles time's] It will deserve considering a while, and the rather because this of Easter being certainly a Christian Festival, the annual commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, and that observed by the asiatics on any day of the week on which the quartadecima Lunae should fall, and not only on the Lord's day, if that shall be found to be so kept by any of the Apostles themselves, this will be no small prejudice to the Diatribists pretensions, who will not, must not allow any other festival among Christians, but that of the weekly sabbath or Lords day, as 'tis by him deduced from the fourth Commandment. And accordingly in his reasoning here against it, his arguments proceed not only against the Jewish manner, but against the feast itself being observed in the Apostles times, as will presently appear.  
Now then for the clear trial of this negation of his, on which his cause so much dependeth, I appeal to the history of that question or controversy betwixt the Eastern and Western Church, as it is set down with very little difference by Eusebius l. 5. and Nicephorus l. 4.  
And first, 'tis Eusebius affirmation of it that all the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
l. 5. c. xy.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. as from a more ancient tradition, and again as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a custom long before delivered to them; which, considering the time wherein this question was agitated at the end of the second Century, can amount to little less than Apostolical.  
But I need not lay weight on this, his 24 Chapter gives us the full debate of it in the Epistle of Polycrates to Victor.  
This Polycrates was the eighth Bishop of Ephesus, and was then 65 years old, which reacheth up very high, within 30 years of S. John's time, and he 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Niceph. l. 4. c. 37.  set down and manifested the tradition to be Apostolical, expressly deducing it from two of the Apostles, Philip one of the twelve, which, saith he, died at Hierapolis, and John the beloved disciple of Christ, who lived and died at Ephesus, adding to these Polycarp Bishop and Martyr of Smyrna, and Thraseas Bishop and Martyr of Eumenia, Sagaris of Laodicea, Papyrius, and Melito of Sardis, All which, saith he, observed, the fourteenth day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, keeping exactly the Canon of faith, and no way varying from it.  
Here it is undeniably evident, that the Asiatic custom was by Polycrates (and all the Bishops of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consented to this Epistle of his) fetched from two of the twelve Apostles, S. Philip and S. John. And if that which 
See Guil. Malmesb. de Antiq. Glaston. Eccl. ex Freculpho l. 2. c. 4. Et Baron: Tom. 1. an. 35. num. 5. Et MS. Hist. Angl: in Vatican. Biblioth.  our stories tell us of Philip's being in France, and sending Joseph of Arimathea and others into Britain, be to be understood of Philip the Apostle, as 
Addit is missum suisse Gal●●●i in Britanniam à Philippo Apostolo Josephum Arimathaeum. Sir H. Spelman Appar. p. 1.  Gildas Albanicus expressly affirms, then have we a clear account of the derivation of this custom of keeping Easter in this Nation from Philip to our first Christians, just as Polycrates in Asia deduces it from the same Philip.  
And that affords us an irrefragable instance of the observation of Christian festivals among us, not only from the first plantation of Christianity among us, but even from the practice of the very Apostles themselves, which was the utmost that I could pretend to in this matter.  
8. And it is farther observable, that Pope Victor of Rome, though he was willing to have proceeded with greater rigour against the asiatics, even 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cut off or excommunicate all the Provinces and Churches of Asia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as heterodox, yet never questions the truth of Polycrates' affirmations, concerning his receiving the custom from those Apostles; And indeed the other Bishops assembled, were not for such severity, but for peace, and unity, and charity with these fellow Christians, and reprehended Victor severely for his thoughts of severity.  
And the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor is very considerable to this purpose, who though he resolved on Victor's conclusion for the keeping it on the Lord's day only, yet he is absolutely against excommunicating the asiatics upon this very ground, that these Churches of God did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, observe the tradition of ancient or original custom, and he farther tells him that the Bishops before him had never broken peace with any on occasion of this difference, instancing in Polycarp who came to Rome in Anicetus' time, and as Anicetus could not persuade him to leave his custom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as having observed it always according to the practice of John the disciple of the Lord, and the rest of the Apostles with whom he had conversed, So neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to leave his way, and yet they communicated one with another; Here again by Irenaeus his own confession, who was for the Western custom, the Eastern was practised by John and the rest of the Apostles (sure more than one) with whom Polycarp had conversed.  
Lastly, There is no doubt all this while of that which the Western pretended for their custom, that they had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Apostolical tradition, saith Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  following the Apostolical tradition upward, or from the beginning, saith Nicephorus, and that expressly 
l. 4. c. 36.  from S. Peter the Apostle, which still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable, that this feast of Easter, which sure is a Christian festival (and all others are to be rated by that standard) was observed and celebrated by the Apostles, and so is the evincing of all that I need to pretend to, for the vindicating of that Resolution of the Quaere concerning the Festivals of the Church.  
What now can be invented by way of reply to this argument thus enforced, I profess not to be able to foresee; what he hath thought fit to offer for the proof of the contrary, I shall now very briefly consider.  
And 1. saith he, there is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture, nor any ground to found it on, But to this, 1. It is sufficient to answer, that there is small virtue in this argument from Scripture negative. 2dly That the Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast, which by circumstances is applied to the feast of Easter, is some (be it acknowledged a less weighty) ground in Scripture for the observation. 3dly That the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day, Rev. 1. is some farther ground whether that signify the weekly or annual Lords day; If it be the annual, there is then a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days; and if it should be the weekly, yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day, which we know is to commemorate the resurrection, as it is evident that the weekly friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christ's death in the Paschal week.  
4thly If the Scripture should give us no kind of mention of this, yet seeing it hath otherwise appeared from the most ancient and undoubted records of the Church, that Easter was observed by the Apostles, by Peter and Paul in one manner, by John and Philip in another, what place of doubt or question can there be in this matter?  
What he adds in the close of his first reason that the Apostles were so far from instituting these as Christian feasts, that they do expressly repeal them and cry them down, hath not the least degree of truth in it, as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4. 10.  
His 2d proof is from Socrates the Historian saying that the Apostles were not solicitous to appoint any festival days at all, therefore not this of Easter. To this I answer, that Socrates' words do not at all deny this to have been the practice of the Apostles, only his conceit is, that neither Christ nor his Apostles 
l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded to observe this by any law, and again that they intended not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make laws of festival days, referring the original of them to custom, which varied in several regions, as appeared to him by that difference betwixt the Asiatic and Western Christians, from whence his conclusion, or (as in the same matter he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) his conjecture was, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the feast of Easter among all sorts of people had a peculiar different observation from some custom, because none of the Apostles had made any law concerning it.  
The short is, Socrates saw that several Nations had their several customs of keeping Easter, some, saith he, from john, others from Peter and Paul, setting down the very story, as we have given it, out of Eusebius, and from thence he collects (how truly it matters not) that no Apostle had given any binding law to all Christians concerning it.  
And so I that speak only of the practice Apostolical, and not at all of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanding it by law, am no way incommodated by this testimony, And for any more than so (practice and custom Apostolical) it will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any evidence for the weekly Christian sabbath or Lords day; sure the New Testament hath no where any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving of law concerning it.  
His 3d proof taken from the difference of the observation of it in the Eastern and Western Church, which, saith he, makes it evident that it was not instituted by the Apostles hath sure now been competently answered, for though that difference conclude against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or appointment of the day by universal law, yet it no way prejudgeth the practice Apostolical, or the derivation of the several customs from this original.  
How true, or pertinent to his purpose that is which follows, that the observation of Easter hath better antiquity than this of Christmas, though not Apostolical, doth already sufficiently appear, the Apostles practice for the one being so evident on all hands, by the confession both of the Eastern and Western Christians, (the several practices being derived from several Apostles) that there can be no doubt in that matter; And then the analogy holding, and the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian festival commemorative of Christ's resurrection, to another commemorative of his birth, or his ascension, will certainly justify the lawfulness of the observation, though the antiquity should not equally be pleadable for it.  
And so I hope I have fully cleared and vindicated the concludency of this argument.   

Sect. 5. Midwinter-day. The Winter Solstice. Julius 's Calendar.  
NExt he proceeds to view the argument drawn from the title which our ancient records give Christmas day, calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Midwinter-day (and as I now find in other Saxon monuments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Midwinter-mass or feast) and with this he is pleased to refresh himself and to be cheerful [How sweetly all agree, etc.] and then to make offer of some answer; But the truth is, he hath not made any the least discovery by those answers, that he adverted at all to that one thing, wherein alone all the force of the argument was placed; I shall therefore repeat it again for him.  
The Winter solstice falling now many days earlier than the 25th of December, the acknowledged day of Christ's birth, we are in reason to believe, that at the time when that title of Midwinter-masse was bestowed on this festival, the Sun entered into Capricorn (i e. the winter solstice fell) if not upon, yet very near to the 25th of December. And then this will drive it very high, up to the Apostles and our Saviour's time, at the year of whose birth though as the learned exactly calculate it, the Sun entered Capricorn on the 24th of December at Rome, yet 'tis certain that julius Caesar ordering the Calendar 43 years before that, and believing that in his time it was as Hipparchus had said (viz. that the solstices had anticipated 8. days, for so in his time Hipparchus had observed) he placed the solstices on the eighth of the Calends, i. e. on the 24th of june, and 25th of December: In consonance whereto, the difference being yet not great, the first Christians might well call this feast Midwinter mass, being indeed so near the solstice then, though the farther we descend from those first times, the less exactness of truth we shall still find in that appellation.  
Now to this Mr. C. is not pleased to make the least word of reply, and so hath not qualified himself to expect any syllable of return from me to his 7th §. Only I shall tell him for his utmost satisfaction, 1. That my argument no way depends on the falling of john Baptists, day on Midsummer day, and only mentioned it to show the agreement betwixt them. 2. That if Christmas day were not celebrated till the end of the 2d Century, it could not with any propriety be called Midwinter mass, for An. 200. the Winter solstice was certainly at a pretty distance from the 25. of December. 3. That though now Midwinter day be a fortnight sooner than the 25. of December, yet in the Apostles times it was not so, and so that is an argument for, not against the observation of it in, or near the times of the Apostles, for else it could not with any truth be called Midwinter day.  
By this time I hope the Diatribists eyes may be opened to discern some force in this argument, and how nothing he hath replied to it.   

Sect. 6. Festivals not Romish. The primitive Churches pure from the heresies that solicited them; The Romish corruptions not fetched from them.  
IN the next place he proceeds to my two inferences, the former of which being only this, that the antiquity or immemorial usage of any festival in our nation doth no way argue that it hath any of the corruptions of the Roman See adhering to it, but the contrary, It is freely granted by him: And then I may for once congratulate the unexpected success of that Paper. For it seems the use of Festivals is not Romish and Antichristian, on the score of which he certainly knows some who have cast them out, and I foresee not how he will ever approve himself to them again, after this one confession.  
However he will make no delay to make some reparations, For though festivals have none of the corruptions of the Roman See adhering to them, yet, saith he, they may have too much of the corruption of those Churches wherein they were first invented, corruptions which crept into those Churches not long after the Apostles days, and the Romish religion is a bundle of most of those corruptions.  
To which I answer, that nothing could be more unjust at once and improbable, than what is here without either proof or diffidence suggested against the most ancient Primitive (and next to Apostolical) Church.  
That there were many foul and dangerous errors which very early, even in the Apostles days, solicited and infested the Church, there is no doubt; that impure detestable sink of the Gnostics, and the several sorts of heretics which all joined together under that title; But then 'tis most evident that the Governors of each Church, by the strength of that depositum committed to them by the Apostles, used all care to secure their flocks from such pests as these, and were by God's blessing successful in it, noted, branded, expulsed these heretics, and kept the Catholic Church entire from their corruptions.  
And then as it is most incredible that those Churches that censured these corruptions, should be infected with them, so nothing can be more unjust, as well as uncharitable and impious, then to affix that character on the Churches, which belonged only to the heretics that disturbed and were ejected out of those Churches.  
By this account the Apostolical Churches themselves, whilst the Apostles presided in them, might be blasted also, for we know there was in their very time a mystery of iniquity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceivers and Impostors, Antichrists, and false teachers good store, but, as S. john saith of these, that they went out from us, separated from the Churches, and so discovered that they were not of them; So it was also after the Apostles death, the heretics and schismatics infused not their corruptions into the Church, and so they cannot with truth be imputed to those that were preserved pure from them, the corruptions of the enemies of the Church, unto the Churches.  
And however the Doctor have been accused sometimes of complying with the Papists, I am confident he never let any thing fall which yielded them so true and solid advantage, as this one affirmation of the Diatribist, that the corruptions, of which the Romish religion is a bundle, are those which crept into the Churches not long after the Apostles days: For what is that, but an agnition, that the most accused Romish practices now adays are the same which were delivered to them from the Primitive Church. For my part I protest my dissent (and so sure doth the whole Church of England, and every true son thereof) to this conclusion.   

Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feast may not be abolished among us. The Diatribists mistake of the question.  
MY 2d inference now follows, 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 Christian Churches (as pillars) to sustain it, were a very competent authority for the present continuance of such a practice in the Church, and that upon this score, because the Anglicane Church being one of those which by its foundation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to no foreign Patriarch, is consequently invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for itself, which consequently may not without great temerity be changed or abolished by any.  
To this, because I see there are some pages of objections inserted by the Diatribist, before I read them over, I desire it may be adverted, wherein the force of my inference consists, viz. in these 3 things, 1. that this particular Church of ours being first planted by some either Apostle or Apostolical person was thereby constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of absolute power within itself, as that excludes subjection to any other foreign power.  
2dly That in all probability this feast was set up, or celebrated here, by those that first planted the faith among us, i e. by some Apostle or Apostolical person, by Simon Zelotes or by those 12 which were sent higher by Philip the Apostle, and joseph of Arimathea one of those.  
3 That what was by so good authority introduced, having no equal reason to supersede it (such as was the contrary tradition of other Apostles in the business of Easter) may not without temerity now be abolished by any; not by any other person or persons, Pope, or Consistory, because no other hath power over a Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by the Apostles, and not subjected by them to any; not by the Church itself, which cannot now be supposed to have any such persons in it, as may be fit to compare with the first founders of it, at least, not without some greater reason for the changing and abolishing, than they may appear to have had for the using of it.  
Upon these grounds my inference being built, as is there apparent by the premises, and the very expressions cautiously used in setting it down, let us now see what the Diatribist hath to object; And 1. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by its foundation, he willingly grants, subordinate to no foreign Patriarch, I shall only demand whether it be subordinate to its own sons, or to any but the legal Fathers of it? I hope it will be as reasonable for me to presume it is not, as it was for the Diatribist to grant the former, for else M. C. a son of this Church by divesting the Pope of his authority, shall only have removed and vested it in himself, and such as he, translated it from the Papacy to the Presbytery, which I hope he will not profess to do, lest that be the very crime which was charged on our Bishops, that they assumed to themselves the Papal power, or the power of ordaining ceremonies, which sure is no greater than that of abolishing them.  
Having made this grant of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this Church, it is observable what he presently interposeth, Yet, saith he, we justly question whether it be invested with such unquestionable power to institute what ceremonies it please, which may not upon good reasons be changed and abolished In which very form of proposing his question or exception, 'tis visible what change he hath thought fit to make in my inference, when I spoke of the power of this Church to institute ceremonies for itself, I never affirmed of those ceremonies once instituted that they might not upon good reasons be changed and abolished, for I doubt not but the same power which may on good reasons institute, may on good reasons abolish also; But first I desired to examine the present reasons of abolition of this Festival, whether they were as important as those whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted, viz. that of the pious and thankful commemorating the birth of Christ; and withal 2. whether those reasons pretended for abolition, were not feigned reasons, as those taken from the heads of Will-worship, and Superstition, have, I must hope, been evidenced to be: or again 3. whether they might not otherwise be satisfied, as that of the riot (charged only as a consequence accidental to the Feast) by care and exercise of discipline.  
To which considerations may 4thly be farther added this reasonable aphorism of Christian policy, that what was thus brought in on such grounds by the governors of a Church, supposing them but such as are of an ordinary rank of governors, and not the Apostolical founders of the Church (to whom certainly more respect is due) may not be cast out by sons of the Church, or indeed by any other than the authority of the succeeding Governors.  
And these few considerations I suppose, may competently evidence the unreasonableness of this changing the terms of the question, if not of his plea for the abolition of the Festival.  
And therefore whereas, upon this occasion, he enters into a large discourse concerning the power of the Church to institute ceremonies, I shall take leave to pass it over untouched, it being certain that the two branches of the one proposition, for which I contend, are no way concerned in any part of his state of this question, nor indeed any thing with the least probability suggested against either, viz. 1. that a National Church planted by the Apostles or their successors may lawfully use a festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ, and on it pray to, and praise God in the solemn assembly, preach out the word and Sacraments, exhorting all good Christians to partake thereof and to lay aside their ordinary labours, that they may be vacant for such holy exercises; and 2. that when such a pious usage hath gained a reception, either from the time of the first planting of the faith among us, or however by immemorial custom (all other Churches in the world for very many hundred years, and for aught we can discern, from the very Apostles practice, concurring with us) it ought not to be declaimed against, as Antichristian, or laid aside, or covenanted against by this Diatribist or others, persons not in but under authority, upon no weight of solid reasons, but upon some causeless suggestions, that it is criminous, under the head of Will-worship and Superstition.  
This was so plainly set down before, to be the whole matter in debate betwixt me and any gainsayers, that there was nothing left to the Diatribist, but briefly to point at the weak part, if there appeared to be any such in either branch of this proposition, and having nothing from him to this purpose, I shall now omit to take notice of the infirmities of which this discourse of his is as full as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected, and hasten to his following §§. in hope of springing somewhat more pertinent to our controversy.   

Sect. 9 The Reformation in this Kingdom. No imperfection in it in point of Festivals. The states joining in it no disadvantage to the Church.  
MY 10th §. proceeded to some few considerations, the adverting to which might render this change or abolition of the Christmas Festival more unreasonable; As 1. that this observation was an undoubted part of that establishment which the Reformation in this kingdom enacted for us, and that by act of Parliament, and not only by Church Canon.  
To this he answers two things, 1. That the Reformation was not so full as the Reformers themselves could have wished; Never considering how far this is from being applicable to the point in hand, For I shall demand, Did all or any of the Reformers, to whose piety and temper we owe our establishment, ever express their wish that all Festivals, particularly this of Christmas should be abolished? or did they not? If it shall be said, they did, I then press that the Record may be produced, by which this hath been notified to the Diatribist; But if he confess they did not, or offer no proof, that they did, than what is it to this matter of festivities, wherein only our present debate is concerned, if in other things of a quite different nature, as that of bringing all notorious sinners to penance every Lent, mentioned in the office for Ash-wednesday, they wished, and expressed their wish, that the Reformation were more perfect? The rule in law is seasonable to be here applied, Exceptio firmat in non exceptis, Their expressing their wish that other things might be more perfect, gives us assurance, that they wished not any farther change in this particular of festivals, then that which they made in the Romish Calendar.  
This answer therefore had little of advantage for him, and yet his only Reserve is, that 2. this seems to grant that the Reformation was made by the State and not by the Church, which now is pleaded for.  
And I pray what is that to the disadvantage of the Church that the State joined with it in the Reformation, confirming and establishing it by Act of Parliament; or 2. why is that the fitter to be abolished which stands by Statute law, as well as by Ecclesiastical Canon, and Custom immemorial; or 3. how doth the Parliaments confirming the Liturgy, and therein the festivals, infer that this festival was not first introduced by the Church, when it is most evident that the Festival was in the Church long before that Act of Parliament?  
These indeed are all the answers we can have to an argument, which seemed to have been of some force with a friend of Parliaments or established laws: and therefore we must content ourselves with them.   

Sect. 3. The Lutheran Churches accord in this. Morney's wish. The Helvetian confession. Rivets custom of preaching on the day.  
MY 2d consideration was, that this and other feasts of Christ are retained in the reformed Lutheran Churches, and where they are taken away, wished for by sober members, as Ph: Mornay Du Plessis, and approved by the confessions of those Churches as the Helvetian, and in other places the day of Christmas afforded the solemnity of a Sermon.  
To this he answers, that the Lutheran are not reputed the best reformed Churches, nor by the Doctor, he believes, thought fit to be compared with England, and so not fit precedents for our Reformation.  
But sure he might have marked that the Lutheran Churches concurring with the English in this of Festivals 'tis no way to the disparaging of my argument, that I do not compare the Lutheran Churches with that of England; 'tis certainly sufficient if they and the Church of England together may be able to compare with all other reformed Churches which have cast out all festivals as superstitious or Antichristian; And thus I shall, without much insolence, adventure to make the comparison.  
As for the little regard he is pleased to give to such private persons wishes, as that of Ph: Morney Du Plessis, I may reasonably reply, that how fastidiously soever he reject it, it may very well be allowed to keep the practice of the Church of France from being any example or precedent to us, when the prime members of their own Church have expressed their dislikes of it.  
And I pray why was not the Helvetian confession worth his taking notice of? that was no bare wish of a private man, but the approbation of a Church, which Mr. Calvin thought fit to write to for their judgement and suffrage to his new erected model at Geneva.  
As for the passage of giving Sermons to Christmas day, I see it is mistaken by him, and applied to, as spoken of himself and such as he in their former practices, and upon that misprision it is, that he is so much concerned to have their prayers as good and as large as the Liturgies, (by the way, if they be not much better, and sure always to be so, why must the Liturgy be abolished?) whereas all this while I never thought of him, or such as he, which it seems, kept fair with Christmas (from whence I am in charity to believe they thought it not Superstition) till they had an advantage of ejecting it, and then made all speed to close with the opportunity, but of some other preachers in other Churches, where this Festival was not observed, such as Andrew Rivet in the Low Countries, who, as I have been informed, constantly preached on that day to his auditors, which was a civility fit to be mentioned to those that will now perform that office on any day of the week, rather than on that.   

Sect. 10. Ejecting festivals. Separation from the purest times, even those of the Apostles. Our Church's departure from Rome unjustly paralleled with the departure of sons from our Church.  
MY 3d consideration was, that the rasing this Festivity out of the Calendar is an act of separation from the Church of England, and the universal Church of all ages, especially of the first and purest times.  
To this he answers by denial of both parts, Not the latter having proved, as he saith, that the first and purest ages of the Church did not observe it, Not the former, unless I yield that the Reformation of the Church of England was a division and separation from the Church of Rome, or the reformation in Luther's time a separation from the Catholic Church, as Papists say it was.  
But for the former of these, it is sufficient to reply by way of demand, where it is that he hath so proved this of the first and purest ages not observing festivals, that he can affirm it certain that this of disusing or laying them down is not separation from the Church of those ages? Truly my eyes or my memory very much fail me, or he hath not as yet proved it in any degree, much less so demonstrated it that a Corollary deduced from thence, and depending on that probation, should deserve to be pronounced certain.  
Nay sure there hath yet been no occasion offered him (at least made use of by him) to attempt so impossible a thing, as is such a negative probation. Of this I am sure, that for this Festival and that other of Easter the reason must be the same, and I have already made it as clear as the day, that that was observed by the Apostles of Christ, by Philip and john on the jewish day, and by Peter and Paul on the annual Dominical; And if through the dimness or want of stories of those times, this be not so evident of this particular Feast of Christmas, yet the analogy holding directly betwixt the one and the other, the argument remains as firm, that the laying aside either this or that festival, is a separation from the Apostolic, and those sure are the first and purest times.  
Besides I have as clearly showed that the solemnities and festivities commemorative of the Martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, two Bishops that lived in the Apostles times, were observed from the very times of their deaths, and that in compliance with other the like festivals of the Church before them, which must needs come home to the observation of festivals in the Apostles days.  
And then how can this Diatribist flatter himself that he hath proved the contrary to this, when he hath not so much as offered either the least answer to these, or any the least reason or proof of his negation?  
For the latter, I reply, that there is no analogy betwixt the Church of England's departing from Rome, and the Diatribists departing from the Church of England, I might instance in many, 'twill be sufficient that I show it in two particulars, 1. the Church of England in the Reformation departed not from their lawful superiors, being, as the Diatribist acknowledges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and owing no subordination to the Church of Rome, when she departed from her, whereas the persons then spoken of by me, and the Diatribist for one, were certainly members that ought a Christian obedience to the Church of England, as inferiors to superiors, and so departed from their lawful superiors wherein Schism doth principally consist, as hath elsewhere been shown.  
Those things wherein the Church of England reform, and departed from the Romish opinions and practices were none of them such as this of festivals now appears to be, i. e. common usages of the Universal, ancient, especially of the Primitive purest Church, but innovations unduly brought in by them, and imposed on all Christians.  
And as even now, so again this Diatribists confession here, is more to the advantage of the Romish Church, than any thing that he could likely have said, no way clearing his fact from Schism, nor offering the least colour to it, and yet acknowledging that the Church of England's reformation, and so Luther's reformation also, was as truly an act of Schism from Rome, as is theirs from the Church of England. But I must put in my protestation of dissent to this proposition also, and that is all I need to say to that answer.   

Sect. 11. The profaneness objected to the Festival. Casting out the Creeds.  
HIS answer to the 4th consideration is so slight, and therein so little on which to fasten any reply, that I may safely intrust the Reader with it, and only mind the Diatribist, 1. that till he hath more solidly proved the observation of this Festival among us to be superstition, than hitherto he hath done, 'twill be great uncharitableness thus to accuse it, and greater injustice to destroy the innocent for this (if it were true, yet but) accidental and removable crime imagined to be adherent to it.  
And 2. till he hath written as full a tract of profaneness as he hath done of Superstition, and been more successful in his evidences that this Festival is guilty of it, showed that that is derived from super statutum also, or evinced the same thing by some more sensible way of probation, 'tis but a pitiful begging of the question, thus irrationally to accumulate crimes on innocency, to add the Profaneness to the Superstition, to suppose the Festival able to work miracles, to reconcile the most contrary extremes (as if in the vein of declaiming he should call the same man first Papist, then Socinian) for such he knows are Superstition and Profaneness.  
In stead of which it were much more seasonable for him sadly to inquire, which is most liable to the charge of profaneness, the setting apart a festival from common uses to the commemorating the birth of Christ in Prayer, Praises, Eucharist, hearing the word read and preached, and profiting by all these; or the fastidious refusing to join with the Church of God in all or any of these offices at that time, following the Plough, or attending the Shop in stead of it.  
And I shall with the same seriousness desire him to review his words p. 147. Where in answer to my mention of disusing the Creeds and Catechism, he saith, in a parenthesis, that the Creed is still to be retained in and with the Catechism] and demand whether he doth not know, that the same Tempest that carried away the Festivals, swept away (more than one) the three Creeds received from the ancient Church and retained in our Liturgy, and together with them the Church Catechism, of which, he knows, I spoke.  
And then what truth can be in his parenthesis, unless it be only this, that these are still retained in our Books (which they have joined to condemn) though they be not retained in their offices, but solemnly ejected by them. Such equivocal answers or responses as these he knows from what oracles they were wont to be delivered, and therefore should not be imitated.   

Sect. 12. The Diatribists change of my words, his causeless praise of himself, and censure of others.  
HIS 14th §. is somewhat of the same making, for when I spoke of that deeper knowledge of some, which was some degree above the vulgar ignorance, and yet was observable to be impatient of sound doctrine, to be ready to embrace any thing that was novel, and contrary to the ancient faith and Principles] he answers, that the impatience of sound doctrine, and readiness to embrace any thing that is novel, is not to be found in those of deep or sound knowledge.  
But why should he there insert the word [sound] can he imagine that I spoke of those of sound knowledge, when I spoke of impatience of sound doctrine, 'twas visible enough that I spoke of those, which while they less seemed to want such helps as Christmas services and sermons to teach them the sound doctrine of Christ, did yet most really need them to cure the vanity of their own minds, and their itch of any thing that was novel.  
By this 'tis also manifest how little temptation he had to break out into those Eulogies of himself and his friends, to which certainly I never constrained him by those words that belonged not to the Pastors but only to their auditors, who when they have attained to some measure of knowledge above the more ignorant, are yet experimented to be very fickle and apt to fall off into new doctrines.  
However, let him not flatter himself as he doth, that those that ejected these Festivities under pretence of Reforming abuses of superstition and profaneness, are the men only or chiefly that propugne and maintain sound doctrine, when, as he goes on very glibly, those that were the greatest favourers of those Festivals, are fallen into Arminianism etc. or do little appear to maintain the truth.  
I wonder what a Pharisee could have said more in his solemnest Magnificat; He, forsooth, and such as he, are the men that only or chiefly propugn and maintain sound doctrine, and who can doubt it when he hath thus affirmed it of himself? and all others are but as this Publican, for so this new style of Arminian bears proportion with that ancient; and whosoever will not think as this Diatribist doth, that Festivals are forbidden in the 2d and the 4th Commandments, that will favour slavish fear, or mercenary obedience, or suspect that grace may be received in vain, must presently fall under that condemnation; and then the best that can be said of them is, that they do little appear to maintain the truth.   

Sect. 13. His 2d change of my words. gedeon's golden Ephod not appliable to Feasts.  
SO again when I had mentioned the designs of this solemnity, no other then to teach us what we have received in Christ, and assist us to render God a pious public acknowledgement of it, He is pleased not to understand this, but to interpret it (contrary to the express words) of the design in the first instituters of this piece of service to Christ Jesus.  
And to what purpose was this change? why, to make the example of Gedeon's golden Ephah applicable to it, in the making of which, saith he, though Gedeon's design was very fair to leave a monument of his victory, yet it proved a snare to him and his house and all Israel.  
From which notable example, no doubt, it follows that every Festival, or what ever else is designed as a public pious acknowledgement of the Christians thankfulness to God, is to be looked on as a snare to all the people of God, and so upon all reasons of piety to be abolished.  
And there were no way of resisting this conclusion thus inferred, if our common notions, or Logic had not warned us that particular premises would never induce a conclusion, and that examples are not always argumentative, For then indeed the Lords day which is supposed to have been designed for all these good ends, must upon the same account be abolished also.   

Sect. 14. Strictures on his 16th §. Our Festivals unfitly compared with the Romish. How observation of Festivals may be a duty of the 5t Commandment. The fourth Commandment no way contrary to Christian Festivals. Venial sins. All mistakes not sins. Chemnitius not producible against me.  
HIS 16th §. is long, in making good his charge of Superstition and Will-worship against this Festival, And it is certain that I have been large enough on these subjects already, as far as any thing that he could suggest, appeared to have the least force either against ceremonies in general, or particularly this of Festivals, and therefore I shall not still bind myself and the Reader to that ungrateful penance of drawing the same Saw for ever, Yet if any thing shall now be afresh objected, I shall not omit to take notice of it.  
As 1. When to free it from all appearance of Will-worship, I say that those that retain the usage, observe it in obedience to the Laws of the Church, he hath great displeasure to this, 1. Because I ought first to have proved that they which instituted that Festival had a Lawful power to do it, adding that the Papists may use the same argument for observation not only of their Holy days, but of their invocation of Saints, adoration of images, and the Mass itself.  
But to this I answer, 1. That my not proving of this was founded in my supposing it. And the reason of that supposition elsewhere competently explained, that as Magistrates in general, so particularly the Governors of a Church have an investiture of power from Christ to the Apostles, whose successors they are, to ordain and institute such circumstances of the public worship of God, as are times and place and gesture and the like, in order to decency, uniformity, and the benefit of their Churches.  
And 2. That this Diatribist can again think fit to compare this with the Papists observing their own holy days etc. is interpretable as a far greater kindness to them, than I have ever been guilty of, For the plain inference is this, 1. The Church may command in lawful things, therefore it may as well do so in unlawful. 2dly There is no more unreasonableness in besainting all those that are gotten into the Romish Legend and Calendar, and consecrating several days to the commemorating of them, then in commemorating the birth of Christ himself. 3dly It is as lawful to invoke all the Romish Saints, as publicly to pray to and praise Christ on the 25th of December. 4thly It is as safe to adore images, and the very bread in the Mass, as to adore and commemorate Christ on that day. What could passion, or interest, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have suggested more unadvisedly than this?  
His 2d dislike and exception is, that having formerly founded times or days designed to public worship, on the equity of the 4th Commandment, I should now devolve the observation of this festival to obedience to the laws of the Church, and so reduce it as a duty to the 5th Commandment, and upon this, as an especial advantage, he is pleased to expatiate.  
But the matter is clear enough, and was so, till he had taken pains to involve it. The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for God's service generally considered, and this or that particular time. That God should have some times assigned for his service is of the very law of Nature, and so much of morality there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly sabbath in the 4 Commandment: Nay farther, the 4th Commandment being given to the jews for the observing one day in seven, as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew, it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set a part one day in seven for our great Christian purposes, the first day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead, And accordingly I suppose it instituted by the Apostles of Christ.  
But then as among the Jews beside the weekly sabbath required by the fourth Commandment, they had many other times of festivity, and fasting, some appointed by God himself in the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, others instituted by men, and yet constantly observed by God's people and accepted by God, and some approved by Christ himself, and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment, though not by any force of that, so now still under the Gospel nothing hinders, but that the Church of God by the power left to, and deposited with them, may ordain Christian feasts, and fasts, and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek sons of the Church, and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worship or spontaneity, but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church, and so a duty of the fifth Commandment.  
As for that which he adds in this matter, that we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment, as for one day of seven to be holy, so for our allowance of six days for our own works, 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it, for where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment? and 'tis visible what the consequence must be in affirming it, even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath, for that certainly was the subject of the fourth Commandment.  
2. It is no way pertinent to the matter in hand, for supposing Christians allowed six days for their own works, 'tis yet visible that some of these six may by the free act of particular men be used, or by the power of the Christian Church be set a part to Christian uses, as well as some days were (not only by God himself, but) by the Governors of the Jews, Judas Maccabeus, and others, set a part for the public service of God in the old Testament, at which time 'tis by all confessed that the fourth Commandment was in force, in all parts of it.  
A second exception I shall note in this §. p. 157. when upon these words of mine concerning the possible mistake of the day, that that will be pardonable in those that verily think they are not mistaken, and that in them that do perform the business of the day as completely on a mistaken day as on the true, the excuse of blameless ignorance will wash away greater errors than this,] he presently replies, Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists doctrine of venial sins? and upon that occasion is put in mind of Bellarmine's defence against the peril of idolatry in the Mass, in case the bread be not transubstantiated: And then he asks, Can any ignorance be blameless against the Law of God, or wash away any error without the blood of Christ?  
But to this the answer is obvious, and the fallacy presently discoverable, For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable sins, must not be presumed to exclude the blood of Christ, those sins are pardonable under the Gospel for which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was paid, and such are all sins that are reconcileable with true repentance, or the sincerity of a regenerate state.  
But then 2. I am no way assured that it is a sin so much as of ignorance, to mistake in the day of Christ's birth; every mistake is not a sin, but only that which is a breach of some law, and therefore I suppose it is, that the Diatribist was compelled to say, Can any ignorance be blameless against a law of God? But then I profess not to know any law of God, against which it is a sin (though but of ignorance) to mistake that day for the annual day of Christ's birth, which really is not the day.  
And I now desire to be informed of which of the ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Testament this is a breach. When he tells me this, I shall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section, and answer his instance of so weighty consideration about the very day of the Jews passover, of which he acknowledge; that the very day was as strictly commanded as the business itself, and so the error must be an error against a law, whereas he as certainly knows that this day of Christ's birth is by none so much as pretended to be so commanded.  
What remains concerning Chemnitius' charge of Superstition, on Papists observation of their holy days, is all answered before it be produced, by this one consideration, that Chemnitius, as a Lutheran, is by the Diatribist confessed to allow this and other Festivals; For than hath he granted all that I contend for, who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papists.   

Sect. 15. Of riot. Christian joys no way contrary to our Festivals. Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day. Heathen customs cannot be objected. God's judgements vainly urged for arguments. The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities. The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after. Reformation of excess without abolition of the Festival. Attempt to reform, previous to abolition. The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals. Cures for diseases, excisions only for desperate spreading evils. No cards on Christmas day, as much strictness on Christmas, not more sacredness then on the Lord's day. No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles. Neither Superstition nor hypocrisy in abstaining from Cards on Christmas day.  
WHat now follows in the 17th §. and so on to the 27. is all to the head of Riot. Which I was careful to remove from this Festivity, And first having disclaimed it as more intolerable in a Christian then in a Jew, and that upon this account, that Spiritual joys are his eminent if not only portion under promise, His answer is, that these are not limited to one or twelve days in a year, but are daily joys, every day is a Christmas to a godly heart, Rejoice in the Lord always etc.  
But he that thus answered, could not but know, that the weekly Lords day is set apart for a Christian Feast dedicated particularly to these Spiritual joys; and that this was very reconcileable with the text that said once and again, Rejoice always, and how then can this be opposed to an annual Festival?  
Besides, all that I had to say, was, that the Christian joys should principally be Spiritual, and this not as a proof of the lawfulness of Festivals, but of the unlawfulness of riots, and the Diatribists answer is wholly to that other head, to which that was never designed as a medium.  
To which I might 3dly add, that that text to the Philippians is an exhortation to rejoicing in tribulations, in the saddest as well as the cheerfullest seasons, and so the always is to be limited by the context; And then the application of it here was still so much less pertinent.  
In the 2d place, my 18th. §. being designed to show how separable all riot was from this Festival, by the nature of Christian dainties, instruction, prayer, praises, alms, and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (none of which were capable of luxury) and Festivity and Hospitality, which were clearly separable from it; His answer is, 1. that these two last are thus separable from riot, but very hardly; And I shall only demand, Are the leisure and cessation from business on the Lords day, experimented to be more easily separable from it? Is it more ordinary for the same men to be drunk upon Christmas day, then upon all, or upon any one Sunday in the year? And have not preachers and magistrates been as industrious to cast out this profane Spirit on the Lord's day and been as unsuccessful in their endeavours? And shall this be any argument for the abolition of that day?  
Next, saith he, the heathen usages in it (almost yielded §. 2.) as they imply that the festival was instituted to gratify the heathen, so God to show his dislike of them, hath suffered them to be attended with two extremes of true worship, superstition and profaneness. But to this I say, 1. that the heathen usages were no way yielded §. 2. but only an argument used ad homines that so affirmed. 2. If there were heathen usages in it, those would no way imply the Festival to have been instituted to gratify the heathens, It was instituted to the honour of Christ, and the heathens were far enough from being gratified with that, and 'tis sufficient if the converted heathens, among whom it was instituted by their converters, did of themselves assume some of their Gentile customs by them thought innocent in the celebration.  
3dly 'tis great presumption and intrusion into God's secretest Counsels, to say that Gods suffering this Festival to be attended with superstition or profaneness was to show his dislike if not detestation of it; For who revealed this counsel of Gods to this Diatribist? Besides, how easily might this argument be retorted on the Lord's day by a Jew, and all the riot and unprofitableness of hearers on that day be made an evidence of God's dislike if not detestation of the setting apart of this day to his service? What impiety of any Sect would want arguments to support it, if such as these might be admitted? Now lastly, the matter of the present debate being only that of riot, what had superstition or profaneness (either or both) to do with that?  
His 19th §. is the accusing those who keep up and cry up the custom of the festivity, yet have taken liberty to lay aside hospitality and charity not only at the time, but all the year long. To which it is sufficient to answer, that then it seems, their hospitality is not the occasion of riot to any, and that is a Competent means of vindicating the festivity so far from that part of the accusation, which now we have before us.  
But then 2dly it were perhaps worth examining what degree of truth there is in the suggestion, and in what instances it is founded; something like this he had once suggested before, and I had then thought that it was not worthy taking notice of, But now the returning of it again more solemnly makes me suspect there may be somewhat in it; And having no other clue to introduce me into his secrets, and the charity and hospitality of those that have cast off the festivals, and with it their obedience to the Church, beyond those that have retained both, having never been so notorious, that I could take cognizance of it, and the writing a Diatribe against all freewill oblations in a Christian, being no vehement indication that those in whose defence it was written, were very eminent in the exercise of those virtues, I began to pitch upon one thing that might of late have yielded some show of truth to his observation, viz. that the condition of many men's worldly plenty hath been so changed of late, that the men have been forced to abate somewhat of the degree of that charity and hospitality that formerly they had both ability and will to exercise, and that these fall out to be the men that retain obedience to the Church of England, and so keep up and cry up the festivals of the Church, though they are not able to keep up the good cheer of it in that degree, which formerly they have done.  
And if the Diatribist was willing to take notice of this turn of the tide, and being himself one of the prosperous party that had cast off obedience and festivals, but retained hospitality and charity, was willing to compare himself with others who being deprived of all their revenues, were not likely to hold up their hospitality, then sure this is a way of answer which might soon be retorted, if justice were allowed to take place, and every man were reinvested in his own again.  
In the mean, those that are deprived of ability to be charitable on one side, as to be occasions of riot on the other, if they must be reproached for their defects in one, should not in reason be accused for excess in the other: And that is all I shall reply to this answer.  
Unless to the 2d part of it I reply in a word, that the hospitality attendant on this Festival was never by me defined or imagined, and is with no justice by him supposed to be a miser's feast, nor know I any the least necessity that it should be followed with a neglect of charity all the year after, but rather that it be looked on as a copy which the whole life of a Christian is to transcribe from this manner of solemnising the birth of Christ, as a first fruits of this duty then paid, as a pledge of the future harvest, as a solemn entrace on that duty then, which in some degree is to be exercised all the year after.  
In his 20 §. having in the first part of it desired no more of me, then that in case of notorious abuse I will believe there is place and season for reformation (which I most willingly yield, being, as he knows, as inclineable and desirous as he or any man, that all excesses should be reform, and never endured among Christians of all other men in the world) his conclusion hath very fairly taken in one term more than was in the premises, and to reformation of excess, annexed of the Festivity itself, meaning evidently, according to the modern style, abolition by reformation; For else, after all his dexterities, it will not do his business.  
For that all excess should be abolished, that the Festivity should be drained from all such unchristian mixtures, and reform in that meeker sense, was visibly the design of the Section to which this of his was confronted; And that, it seems, will not serve the turn, but as if reformation were never reformation, unless like the breaking in of the Ocean it sweep and carry away all before it, as if our Dictionaries were to be changed, and that word were to be glossed by nothing but vastation and depopulation, all that I had said of reformation of excesses signifies nothing with him, unless the Festivity itself be reform also, and that just as Episcopacy was to be reform, by being turned out of the Church.  
And all the reason which is offered for this (viz. because the Festivity hath ordinarily been attended with such mischiefs without the least attempt of reformation) if it have any the least truth in it, is visibly a reason for the contrary; For is it not madness to destroy the vineyard, before any least attempt hath been made to dress or manure it, to cut down the tree before ever it was once digged about? were it reconcileable with any tolerable sobriety to abolish the Lords day upon any, much more upon such an account as this of riot and drunkenness ordinarily attending it, without ever giving the offender the first or second admonition, without ever attempting to reform it? Certainly the rules of sober discipline are directly the contrary, to attempt and diligently endeavour the reformation of the excess, and never to proceed to severer remedies, till the evil is experimented to be not only obstinate but desperate, and yet then too, to divide betwixt the nocent and guiltless, and not involve both in the same condemnation; And arguments must sure be very scanty, when those come to be used for the affirmative, which were proper only for the negative; And yet thus is it at this time with the Diatribist.  
But his 21th §. offers us an example of this destructive, exterminative reformation, St Pawles discipline on the feasts of charity by way of destruction and abolition, when they began to be abused to surfeiting and drunkenness, 1 Cor. 11. 17. But herein are good store of mistakes, For 1. If that place to the Corinth's be examined, it is most evident that it was the Lord's Supper, into which that excess was crept, and accordingly as he tells them v. 20. that this is not to eat the Lords Supper, so for the reforming of what was amiss, he tells them what the institution of Christ was in it, and there expressly sets down the first institution of the Lords Supper, In the night he was betrayed he took bread, v. 24. etc. And then I must demand, did St. Paul destroy and abolish this feast wherein these abuses were observed? if he did, he abolished the Lord's Supper, and then here is indeed an instance home to his purpose: But if he did not, why did the Diatribist tender us this instance, when he knows that drunkenness and most unworthy behaviour at the Sacrament never suggested to the Apostle the least thought of abolishing or disusing the Sacrament.  
But then 2. To grant him the utmost that he can wish in this matter, viz. that there were two parts of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord's Supper, one in taking a morsel of bread, and tasting the wine, in commemoration of Christ's body and blood, another in eating and drinking together more liberally, after the former was done, and that this latter is it which is meant by Agapae in S. Judas, and that this latter was taken away out of the Church, upon the too common unreformable abuses of it; yet still this is nothing of advantage to the Diatribist; For still this will but conclude that the carnal external part of the Festivity, the eating and drinking part, should fall under this discipline, not the Spiritual more Christian part, and 'tis evident one of these is as separable from the other, as the Sacrament from the Agapae.  
And thus much was willingly yielded to his hands in that §. to which his instance of the Love-feasts was opposed, and 'tis certain no more can rationally, by any analogy, be concluded from it.  
Nay 3. It was not possible any instance could have been brought more fitted for my turn (and so I hope not for his) then this of the Agapae. For when this disorder at Corinth had brought this attendant on the Christian festival under some censure, it was thus reform, (as appears in Justine Martyrs Apology, where he sets down the whole course of the office) The offerings were not lessened by this means, but otherwise disposed of, and that which was not eaten at the Lords Table, was kept in a common bank for the poor, the Stranger, the Fatherless and Widow, and a very competent provision was made for all by this means.  
And so truly in like manner, if upon a just inquiry it be found that the Christmas liberality and hospitality still ends in riot, and that there is no hope of restraint to be laid upon it, as it runs in that channel, It is most obvious and easy for every sober Christian to turn the stream another way, to lay aside for relief of the poor, that which was usually laid out in the extraordinrry entertainments at this time, and as that is the utmost, to which the severity used on the Agapae can extend, or suggest, so it is the very thing which was proposed §. 20. but it seems cannot yet satisfy this Diatribist.  
What in 22th §. he censures in me as pretty untempered mortar, will not, I believe, be found so, in any sober judging. 'tis only this, that though the eating and sporting part of this festity be strictly to be kept within bounds and as strictly to be reform wherein it hath been discerned to exceed (this had been set down before, and was now supposed) yet for abolition of all hospitality and recreation, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remission (as Nazianzen styles it) at these times it was to be looked on as a last remedy, and so not proceeded to till the disease were universally spreading and obstinate against all cure, for whilst it were lower than so, it was still but the season of reformation.  
From whence that the Diatribist should think fit to infer it my sense (that he might accuse me) that less or less general abuses need no reformation, there can be no tolerable account rendered, but only this, that his ears have been so accustomed to the new dialect, that of exterminative reformations, that he cannot think the word signifies any thing else, by whomsoever it is used, but (that which indeed it never signifies in any propriety of speech) extirpation and abolition. In a word, I think there is no necessity of excision till the part begin to gangrene or corrupt and spread, yet I can admit of medicines long before, and heartily advise timely prudent applications, as soon as ever the patient begins in the least measure to be distempered.  
His 23th §. is the accusing of those that used cards on the Lord's day after the evening service, and the upbraiding their superstition that they will not touch cards or dice on Christmas day; and the answer is sufficient, that as I spoke not a word of them that did thus, so I never heard of any that thus made a difference betwixt Christmas day and the Lords day, but that if they used that liberty on the later, they used it on the former too; However if by the Diatribist it were deemed criminous in the one, I should have hoped he might have been gratified by hearing it was abstained from in the other: For my own part I never allowed myself the liberty on either, and know not that I ever saw it used, and therefore I am sure there is nothing farther to be replied to by me in that §. I as heartily with a devout, conscientious, profitable observation of the Lords day, as of any other Festivity, and cannot justly fall under the Diatribists censure for any thing I have so much as intimated in this matter.  
And this I say the rather, because §. 24. this is charged upon my doctrine as a crime, and a part of superstition, that the day hath been accounted more sacred than the Lords day, and the proof brought out of my 20th §. where saith he, I call it most sacred, and out of my 24th §. where I say it hath been kept if not much more, yet certainly as strictly as any Lord's day in the year.  
But here is misprision in each of these; The phrase most sacred §. 20. doth not at all belong to the day, (much less to the preferring it before the Lord's day in respect of sacredness) but only to a Christian Festivity, as that is made up of prayer, praises, Eucharist, charity, hospitality, &c: All which being put together I hope I could not offend in styling it most sacred, such as the extravagant, irrational riots of men ought not to assault and pollute.  
And for the 2d, there is no such word as sacred to be found in that 24th §. all that is said is, that in this nation the day of the birth of Christ hath been kept (if not much more) certainly as strictly as any Lord's day in the year, and this interpreted most clearly by the following words) in frequenting the services of the Church, in the use of the Liturgy, Sermon, Sncraments, etc. And I cannot imagine how this manner of strict observing of it can be criminous in itself, or to the prejudice of the Lords day, on which 'tis no news to say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which I make an ingredient in the strictness of the celebration, and that which denominates it more strict, is not constantly celebrated; and yet sure no fault that it is constantly celebrated on Christmas day.  
However the strictness of observing is one thing, and the sacredness is another, Any private fast may be more strictly observed, more, or more severe strictness of duty allotted to it, then to the Lords day, and yet the Lords day, as set apart by the Apostles of Christ, in respect of that institution, and of the resurrection of Christ, to the commemorating whereof it was consecrated, be esteemed and looked on as most sacred. I need to say no more of that.  
As for the ground which he pretends from his own knowledge, to assign of my thus speaking: viz. that we may make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority, viz. of the Church, this he must very much dissemble his knowledge, if he confess not to be a mistake also.  
For in the margin he grants that I say that the Apostles instituted the Lord's day §. 31. and so certainly I do (though I know not in what words of Scripture that institution is set down) But, saith he, there be other words §. 57 which speak of the Lords day by the same authority appointed. To which I answer that the words there used [though the Lords day be by the same authority appointed] belong not at all to the stating, of this question, and being introduced in that form [though etc.] they are not any affirmation that the Lords day is not instituted by any higher authority than Christmas day, but only a concession of what was asked by the Quaerist, without so much as examining or enquiring into the utmost of the authority by which it stood. Of this I had sufficiently expressed my sense §. 31. as the Diatribists margin confesses from me, viz. that the Apostles instituted the Lord's day, whereas in that 57th §. I speak as plainly of Christmas day, that it hath its authority from the institution and usage of the Universal Church; And if when the matter is so clear, and my meaning so express both for the one and the other, I must yet be accused for the contrary, and this be affirmed from the Diatribists knowledge to be my ground, viz. a design to make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority, and that by him specified, viz. of the Church; 'tis certainly most visible, that either this is a calumny in the Diatribist, or else that the word Church must be so taken as to comprehend that part of it, of which the Apostles were rulers in person, and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted, the Church of the Apostles instituted the Lord's day, and either they personally, or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals, the Festival of Easter being derived undoubtedly from the Apostles, Philip and John, Peter and Paul, as hath already clearly appeared out of the difference betwixt Victor and Polycrates; And other Festivals by the passages of the Martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, i. e. by evidence of story being demonstrated to be little later, though of Christmas this do not so expressly appear to me as to be any where affirmed by me.  
But there is yet more of this captious discourse behind upon my saying that 'tis not usual to touch cards or dice on Christmas day, and this must add either to our superstition or hypocrisy, our superstition, if they be lawful, in that they forbid them on that day, that God hath not forbidden them; Hypocrisy, if they be unlawful, in abstaining then, and yet using them on their days. But we shall soon be extricated from the power of this Dilemma, by affirming, 1. that those sports used moderately, as diversions, and no way abused by our inordinacy, are not by any argument that ever I met with, proved to be toto genere, or absolutely unlawful, and so that they may be used for divertisement on other days, and particularly on the following days of that Festivity, and yet 2dly that they are no way necessary, and so that no man offends, that abstains from them on all other days, and employs himself better constantly.  
From whence it is necessarily consequent also, that he that hath fed on the body and blood of Christ, and consecrated himself in an extraordinary manner to commemorate the mystery of our redemption on Christmas day, and agreeably thereto, desires to spend it so much more strictly than other days, as not to admit those sports (which are lawful on other days) to divide any part of that, can never be criminous in so doing.  
As for any thing of riot (but such is not all lawful divertisement) on the following days, he knows they are no way pleaded for by me, and if any be guilty of them, as the shame thereof is due to the offenders, not to the festival, which is innocent and laudable; so 'tis too well known that the Lords day itself hath not been secured from the same unhappy adherences.  
And it might as well be charged on that that the heathens worshipped the Sun on that day, and that revelling upon it are fitter for such heathen feasts then for Christians, as the Diatribist could suggest in this place that the Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time that Christmas was, and that the excesses of the following days are services fitter for the revels of Bacchus and Saturn or the birth day of Herod, then for the festivity of a spiritual Saviour. All this is true, and equally granted by both parties, and so hath no propriety or pertinency to the dispute between us.   

Sect. 16. Christmas, if of the same original with Easter, certainly Apostolical. However, of the practice of the Primitive Church. All rendering of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
MY 27th §. was introductory to a discourse more general, to show by what authority, festivals in general, and particularly this of Christmas, pretends to stand in the Catholic Church, which I acknowledged not to be by any institution of Christ's, but to have had the beginning from the Apostles or the succeeding Church.  
To the view hereof he now proceeds, and briefly sets to it, to disprove each of these originals, beginning first with that of the Apostles. And of this he thinks he need say no more, then to appeal to the same arguments which he had used against the Apostles institution of Easter §. 6. viz. 1. the no mention of such institution in the Scripture; 2. the express words of Socrates, that neither Christ nor his Apostles commanded the feast of Easter to be observed.  
But to both these it is certain that I owe no return having now paid it so punctually in the 4 ʰ §. where beside clear answers to the Diatribists arguments, I added evidences undeniable that the feast of Easter was observed by the Apostles, And I cannot doubt but they will be of force with him, when he shall take leisure to weigh them; And than if the case shall be acknowledged the same betwixt Easter & Christmas, that of the resurrection & this of the birth of Christ (as the Diatribist seems to acknowledge in tendering no one argument more against the Apostolicalness of Christmas, than he had before produced against the institution of Easter by them) than it is evident my affirmation must ascend higher than it ever meant to have done, and not proceed disjunctively, that this feast of the nativity is derived either from the Apostles or the succeeding Church, but leaving out the latter part of the partition, fix upon the former, that, being yielded to have the same original with Easter, it is certainly derived from the Apostles, from whence it appears that of Easter is derived.  
To which purpose we have already produced some evidences which may justly pretend to some force, at lest ad hominem, to him that hath no more against this, then against all other Christian festivals, viz. those from the martyrdoms of Ignatius and Polycarp, written by those that were present at them, and so lived soon after the Apostles.  
That of Polycarps recorded in that famous Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, I have set down at large, and made my inferences from it § §. 33. and 34. of that treatise of Festivals, To which I have here formerly added that other parallel testimony from the acts of Ignatius.  
So that now I hope I may safely resume my former affirmation, without all diffidence, that other Festivals beside that of the weekly Lords day, were derived to us, some certainly from the Apostles, others from the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles; In one of which ranks though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity of Christ is to be placed, yet because we have not those evidences of the fact which we have for Easter and others, I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainties, nor affirm more than what that treatise hath showed out of the ancient Fathers, that this feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity.  
And against this I am sure neither Socrates nor my L. of Falkland (who is joined next to him) hath suggested any thing; & than what was thus done by them, must not in equity fare the worse for my adding the mention of a motive or incitement that might reasonably recommend it to them, which is therefore presently styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a show of wisdom, as if all reasonable motives were to be blasted under that title, as all uncommanded performances here are said to be by the express words of the 2d Commandment, & Col. 2. 23. But sure we have formerly spoken enough of this arguing.   

Sect. 17. The Encaenia, a religious feast instituted by the the jews, and approved by Christ, vindicated from all his exceptions. Marriage feasts. Religious feasts cannot be unlawful, if civil be lawful. The feast of Purim a religious feast.  
THE 29th §. proceeds to consider what I had said of the Encaenia among the Jews, the feast of dedication not instituted by God in the Law, but in commemoration of the purging of the altar by Judas Maccabeus, and yet this observed by the Jews, and approved by Christ's presence at it, Joh: 10. 23.  
To this the Diatribist answers, that there may be many mistakes in this, And truly it matters not how many there may be, as long as there appears not to be any one.  
First then his answer is, that there were three feasts of dedication, and I cannot but know that learned men are divided of which it's here meant. But how can this first answer be of any avail, when I that took notice, as he confesses, of the three, made it evident that the place was meant of the third, that instituted in the Maccabees, and the Diatribist cannot deny but its probable so it was, and offers not to answer the proofs, or to pretend aught for either of the two former against this.  
His 2d answer is, that granting it to be the last, yet there are reasons to think it was not a religious Festival but a civil, as the feast of Purim seems to be, Esth: 9 21, 22. But it is not imaginable the Diatribist should thus think, or be persuaded by these reasons.  
His reason is from the words 1 Mac. 4. 59 They ordered it should be kept yearly with mirth and gladness, adding that though it be said v. 56. they offered burnt-offerings, yet that was v. 53. according to the law, and so was worship commanded.  
Now truly this I thought had been sufficient proof, that this was a religious feast, and it was great surprise to me to see it brought to infer the contrary: For what greater evidence can there be brought of a religious feast, than this, of which out of the Story he hath set down a considerable portion, but lies in the Maccabees more completely thus.  
Now on the 25th day of the Ninth month (which is called the Month Casleu) in the 148th year they rose up betimes in the morning and offered sacrifice according to the law upon the now altar of burnt-offering which they had made; look at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it, even upon that was it dedicated with songs & citherns, harps & cymbals; Then all the people fell upon their faces worshipping & praising the God of heaven who had given them good success, and so they kept the dedication of the altar 8 days, and offered burnt-offerings with gladness; and sacrificed the sacrifice of deliverance and praise etc. and then v. 59 Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Israel ordained that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year by the space of eight days from the 25 day of the month Casleu with mirth and gladness.  
And now I shall ask the Diatribist, Is there any reason to think this was not a religious festival, nay is it possible for him to give any account, why in setting down the passages of it, he should omit the people's falling upon their faces, worshipping and praising the God of heavens and sacrificing the sacrifices of deliverance and praise, together with Judas and his brethren and the congregation (which is not God, as hath hitherto been pretended it ought to be from the 2d and 4th Commandment) ordaining that it should be so kept for the future from year to year?  
Do not those passages take away all possibility of doubting, either of the religiousness of the Festival, or the institution by man and not by God? And is there now against all this any force in the words v. 53. [according to the law] which the Diatribist confronts to the mention of burnt-offerings, as an answer, or reason, why that which was kept with burnt-offerings, was yet no religious feast? May not burnt-offerings according to the law, such as the Mosaical law approves of, yea and commands to be used for burnt-offerings, be used in a religious feast? what was ever suggested by any disputer with less appearance of truth or probability? He knows that in the free will offerings there were yet laws given by Moses according to which they were to offer, and why should it not be so in a feast ordained by Judas? would he imagine that illegal offerings should have been sought out for it, to constitute it a religious feast?  
Here sure was matter of conviction to the Diatribist, I shall not inquire why it did not prevail with him. Only of this I am sure, that if this one instance had been permitted to appear, what indeed it is, and now is visibly demonstrated to be a religious feast instituted by the Church of the Jews, and not by God, and yet approved by him, there can never need any farther evidence to confute and demonstrate the vanity of all his three Diatribae of Superstitition, Will-worship, Festivals, his suggestions from superstatutum, from additions to the word, from the 2d and 4th Commandments, from Col. 2. whether as it mentions Will-worship or the Commands of men.  
Our Christmas festivity, supposing the utmost that he can wish, that it was not observed by the Apostles, but instituted by the Church, be two or three hundred years after Christ, being perfectly answerable to this of the dedication, and so demonstrated, by analogy with that, to be approved by Christ.  
And therefore it was but necessary that this evidence should by all convenient means be rendered uneffectual, All the unhappiness of it was, that the matter would not yield any such, and so the Diatribist was to content himself with such as we have now discovered.  
And because he could not but foresee it possible, that they would be thus discovered, and that yet it will be (more than) said that it was a religious feast and so observed, he therefore hath a 3d answer in reserve, Then saith he, it may be fairly suggested that they went beyond their commission in making this feast annual and perpetual, which neither Solomon nor Zorobabel did theirs, for aught we read.  
Here are again the clear symptoms of a desperate cause, that fain would catch at some supports, but is forsaken of all. 'tis evident Judas and his brethren and the whole congregation ordained that it should be kept thus from year to year, 1 Mac. 4. 59 and as evident that it was 〈◊〉 observed by the Jews even in Christ's time, and as evident still that Christ was present at that feast (and so approved of and confirmed it) joh. 10. 23. And yet saith he, it may be fairly suggested that they went beyond their commission in making this feast annual, what again could have been said more unluckily than this, more contrary to express evidence in every degree of it?  
Add to this 2. that even both of the two other feasts of dedication, at the erecting the Temple in solomon's, and re-edifying it in Zorobabels' time, if they were annual, were fully parallel with this, and that they were so, was by this Diatribist affirmed to be the opinion of learned men, in this very page, who, saith he, interpreted the place of John 10. some of the one, some of the other of these, which 'twere ridiculous for them to do, if it were not annual.  
Nay lastly, supposing these two were never observed above once a piece, I shall now demand, why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often, or annually and ordinarily, as for one turn and extraordinarily? If the first offended not by being super statutum, how could the second or hundredth or thousandth repetition render it criminous? 'tis not imaginable what reason can be given for this, that what was lawful last year, shall be impious this year; what ground of so great difference, that one should be approved, the other condemned, one not only innocent but commendable, and the other (i. e. the same received into constant annual practice) repudiated and rejected.  
And yet in this, it seems, all the difference lies all this while, extraordinary days of thanksgiving for one turn saith he, he accounts lawful to be done by the higher powers, and so extraordinary days of humiliation; From whence I conclude, that if King Lucius 1400 years ago kept Christmas day for one turn and no more, and so Good Friday also, he had the Diatribists leave to do it very freely and lawfully; But if when he had done so once, he shall offer to do it again, the next year, then Mr. C. must needs write Triplicem Diatriben against him.  
What he yet farther adds as a last mistake in me, will be soon found of the same rank with the former. Another mistake, saith he, is this, that that feast was approved and confirmed by Christ's presence at it, whereas, saith he, the text 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 v. 22. Jesus walked in the Temple, so he did other days, any day when no feast was etc.  
I wish we were at an end of this kind of arguing, for it will not easily be paralleled in any Diatribist, All that is by me affirmed from the text, is that Christ was present at it, the rest is my deduction from thence, and I hope I have not offended therein, For is not that an evidence of Christ's approbation, and so confirmation of it? would Christ have been present at an unlawful, nay (as this must be by the Diatribists divinity) superstitious detestable feast, wherein the 2d and 4th Commandments were directly violated by the very keeping of it, and never have reprehended it? would he not have scourged it and dispatched it out of the Temple, as he did that huckstring custom of buying and selling there, and expressed as great impatience against such superstitious violations, as those other profanations of his Father's house? would not his presence at the Feast have had the scandal of superstition, if the Feast itself had had that crime in it?  
What now he appoints to be marked, that this Feast was at Jerusalem, not at the Temple, is very strange. For if it were a religious Feast (as hath already appeared it was from the story of the institution in the Maccabees) then sure it was in the Temple, and so at Jerusalem, where the Temple was. And what if Jesus walked in the Temple on other days, when no feast was, doth it therefore follow that now it was not the Feast, when he walked there, and when the text saith expressly that it was the Feast? This is a new sort of arguing still, and this may be reiterated more turns then one, and yet nothing amiss in it.  
What hath thus far been said by him of the Encaenia, is appliable, saith he, to my second instance among the Jews, the festivities of marriage, For marriage itself, saith he, is a civil thing and not religious. But I shall not engage farther in new controversies, having enough before me already (else sure marriage might be approved to be religious) I shall only need to demand on this head of discourse, what the difference is between a civil, and a religious festivity? I shall suppose only this, that in the one the public services of the Church, among Christians, prayers, Psalms, Sermon, Eucharist, (some or all of them) are used, as among the Jews, sacrifices, etc. adding to these festival diet also, whereas the other is made up only of the latter.  
And then supposing one of these (as the Diatribist granteth) lawful among the Jews, and so among Christians at the celebration of marriages, I shall demand how it is possible, the other should be unlawful? Can the services of the Church being added make that criminous, which was innocent before? 'tis possible indeed for a profane mixture (such as riot, etc.) to defame and pollute that, which is most sacred, but have the sacred offices of the Church that same accursed force in them, to make that which was but civil before, sacrilegious and impious? This is another rarity, that I had not formerly been acquainted with.  
But before I leave this matter I must take in, what he hath in like manner affirmed of the feast of Purim among the jews, of which though having made mention in the Practical Catechism, I added no more in the Treatise of Festivals, yet there cannot be any thing more pertinent to our present debates, this being without any direction from God, voluntarily instituted by the jews not only for one turn, but as an establishment among them, on the 14th and 15th day of the month Adar yearly, Hest. 9 21. Now of this he takes notice by the way §. 29. (treating of the Encaenia) and saith of it as of the other, that it seems to be a religious festival, but a civil; But this again without the least show of probability.  
I shall need go no farther than the text to demonstrate it, Hest. 9 There v. 16. the jews had rest from their enemies, and thereupon v. 17. on the 13th day, and 14th of the month Adar rested they, & made it a day of feasting and gladness and v. 18. The Jews that were at Shushan assembled together on the 13th day, & the 14th day thereof; & on the 15th they rested & made it a day of feasting & gladness, and v. 19 the jews of the villages made the 14th day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions one to another, Here I cannot but suppose that a day of rest, of assembly, of feasting, and gladness, a good day (i. e. in their style a festival day) a day of hospitality and charity, sending of portions (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as in a sacrifical feast) will to any impartial readerpasse for an indication of a religious feast.  
And as these days were observed for the first turn, so they are established for a yearly observation, v. 21. 22. And the jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves to them, so as it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year, v. 27.  
What could be more express for the religiousness, and for the establishment for continuance; and this still a feast instituted by the jews, and not by God himself, and so as clear an instance, on our side of the matter contested, as is imaginable.   

Sect. 8. How the comparison holds between the Lord's day and Christmas day. Institution, usage Apostolical for Festivals. No law in Scripture for the Lords day.  
NOw follows his view of what I had said of the Lords day, not instituted by Christ, or God himself but by the Apostles, without any mention in the New Testament of any prescription or law for the observing of it.  
To this he is very glad to proceed, hoping for some great advantage from it; let us see what the success will prove.  
And 1. saith he, there want not learned men who think that Christ did design the day. But I must demand whether he can imagine that those learned men were in the right in this, or have herein expressed any of their learning? If he cannot think they have, why doth he lose time and gain nothing by the mention of them? If he can, why doth he not so much as offer their grounds of thus opining, when he knows nor Scripture nor antiquity saith any thing of it, and when it were as tolerable in any opposer to offer his opinion also, that Christmas day was by Christ himself designed also.  
But then 2dly saith he, if the Apostles did institute it, that's more than he dare say of Christmas day. And what if it be? Doth that prejudge the observing of Christmas, supposing it certain (as I do suppose) that it was either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church? Suppose some feasts of the jews instituted by God or Moses, others by the Church of the jews, and not by Moses, as the Purim and Encaenia, Are not these latter as lawfully to be kept to all posterity of the jews, as those former?  
But then 2dly the parallel that I set betwixt the Lord's day and Christmas day, was only this, that as neither of them was found prescribed, or by law commanded in Scripture, so the want of such law should be no prejudice to the one, more than to the other, as long as by some other way it appeared of the one, that it was derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church, as of the other, that it came immediately from the Apostles; It being evident that if the Apostles usage gave to one a divine authority, the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that, though not divine, and the latter lawful, yea and obligatory, as well, though not in so high a degree, as the former, as the Encaenia were as lawful, as the Passover, and were obligatory also, though not by the same authority. By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the observing of Christmas, though there should be no certainty of the Apostles instituting it.  
Next he demands, If the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ, do not their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law? I answer, that if by institution be meant giving Law for the observation of it, than there is no doubt of his proposition, the predication being identical, institution in this sense, is prescribing, or giving Law.  
But 'tis possible that institution of the Lords day by the Apostles] may signify another thing, viz. that the Apostles practice, assembling weekly on the Lord's day, should have the force of an institution, or a Law with the succeeding Church, though indeed the Apostles gave no Law for it, or if they did, no such Law appears from them.  
The examples of the Apostles are the only way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law; And accordingly in this sense also I consent to the Diatribist, that their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law, and so I shall no way contend with him in this matter.  
Only upon these grounds, I shall demand, that whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us, through all ages of the Church, from the times of the Apostles themselves, may be acknowledged also to carry a divine impression upon it. And then, to omit Episcopacy (which he cannot but know hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords day) I shall insist only on the feast of Easter, which hath been demonstrated to be derived from the Apostles, and so is an instance of all that I pretend in the point of Festivals, leaving Christmas day to the equity of proportion, and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it.  
Next he proceeds to what I farther say, of the no Law, that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day. In order to which I said, that if any thing of that nature be sought there, it will rather appear to belong to the annual, then weekly feast of the resurrection, naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast, and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. by some thought to belong to the annual day also.  
Against these he urgeth some authorities of some ancient and modern writers, which, saith he, do not seem to understand these places thus. And though 'twere no impossible thing to answer those testimonies, yet I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers, and other such Learned men, but yielding him all he desires of both these places, I must only desire him to remember, that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me, unless he can bring out of the Scripture some other places, which are more apodictical evidences of Apostolical Law for the weekly Lords day, than these are for the annual; For the matter is clear, all that I was there to prove, was no more but this, that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them.   

Sect. 19 Aërius 's heresy that Festivals are unlawful. St Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius ' s. The Diatribists inconstancy. The testimony of the Church of Smyrna, an evidence of keeping the days of tho Apostles martyrdom. The Testimony from the martyrdom of Ignatius according with it. Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals.  
IN the 32th §. to Epiphanius' censure of Aërius as of an heretic, for affirming festivals unlawful, his answer is, that all is not heresy that Epiphanius calls so, nor all Aërius' opinions justly censured as heretical.  
And so indeed the Diatribist is concerned to think, both in respect of this and some other interests, that especially of Episcopacy. But for the averting of so great a crime, it would well become the accused to offer some reason for the clearing himself, and not only to have mentioned the name of Osiander the Epitomiser of the Centuriators, wose words are not affirmed to belong to this particular of Festivals, and if they did, whose authority is sure so Incompetent to weigh with Epiphanius in setting down the sense of the ancient Church, that in all reason some evidences should have been annexed to add weight to him.  
As it is, I must not thing strange, that they which transcribe that affirmation from Aërius, will not allow it to be heresy in him; I will only demand whether St Augustine be of any better account with him, Haer. 53. he knew what heresy was, and what Aërius was guilty of, and whether elsewhere he may deserve to be believed, when in consort with himself and with Epiphanius, he saith, Rectè festa Ecclesiae colunt, qui se Ecclesiae filios 
Sam. 253. De Temp. Domin. 1. Adu.  recognoscunt, they that profess themselves sons of the Church do duly observe the feasts of the Church, setting this of the nativity in the front of such, where surely those that do not observe them, must disclaim their sonship, and that is but a paraphrase to express those, whom Epiphanius styles heretics.  
If he shall bring any so fair evidences, that they that observe feasts are superstitious, I shall think myself obliged to do more than deny the accusation.  
For the festivities of martyrs mentioned by me in the same §. he acknowledges they began betimes, as superstition, saith he, ever attends religion and devotion, adding that though they were intended for good ends, yet they produced in time much superstition.  
But sure thy answer is very unsufficient, and inconstant; Unsufficient, for what if it were granted that in a process of time these festivities did occasionally produce some evil, so Christianity itself, so all things that should have been most for our wealth, may through the vices of men be perverted into occasions of falling; But what is that to the antiquity of Festivals, which is the only thing that these instances were required to testify.  
And 2dly inconstant, for at first these festivities are looked on as superstition attending religion and devotion (and by the way, if that be applicable to these festivities, that will be a competent character of their antiquity, for religion and devotion, were brought in with Christianity, and if the Festivities were the superstition that attended that, they will be pretty ancient) and yet in the latter part 'tis said of them, that they produced in time much superstition, which latter if it be true, than the former which was contrary, is not true, and that is sufficient to be replied to that answer.  
As for his return to §. 33. which is of the same matter that I presume too much upon my own reason in concluding from the testimony of the Church of Smyrna, that the days of the death of the Apostles themselves were solemnised thus early, i. e. before Polycarps death] Sure his censure is not over reasonable; For when by those express words of that Church's Epistle it is first apparent, that Polycarps death was thus celebrated, 2. That this Polycarp was immediate successor to the Apostles, and lived in the same time with them, 3 That this commemoration of Martyrs was before this time used in the Church, and no new thing now to be done to Polycarp; what reason of doubting can there be, but that at this time the Apostles having received (many of them) this crown of martyrdom should be thus commemorated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in joy and exultation, i. e. with a festivity, when this appears so expressly of Polycarp, and that in accord to former practice, especially when to that is added the instance perfectly parallel of Ignatius, yet more ancient than Polycarp, and the day of his death precisely observed by those that were present, on this very purpose, say they, ut secundum tempus martyrii ejus congregati communicemus athletae, that they might assemble at the day of his martyrdom, and communicate with this champion.  
That I produce not more or more express testimonies for the festivals of the Apostles, need not seem strange, the records being so few which remain of those times, and my reading being so small; For the present, these two may be considered, being testimonies of competent antiquity, and force to prove what I pretend to prove, that Festivities were observed by the Church next succeeding the Apostles, and why Polycarp and Ignatius should have that honour, when Peter and Paul were not allowed it, I still profess not to discern reason, nor consequently to make any doubt of it.  
Mean while when the Diatribist is willing to form an argument from my not bringing of testimonies §. 33. it is remarkable that §. 34. is wholly passed over in silence by him, which yet produceth the authorities of Gregorius Thaumaturgus, of Cyprian, of Tertullian, ex majorum traditione (and so of those that were much more ancient than he) and so entirely made up of testimonies of the first antiquity concerning the memories of the Martyrs (which must sure include the Apostles, as many of them as were thus crowned) before any Churches were built, wherein to assemble and celebrate their Festivals.  
This shows that the Diatribist had little reason to complain of want, at that very time when he was thus overcharged with plenty of testimonies, and hath not a word to return to any one of them, any more than he doth §. 35. to the mentions of Origen, Cyprian, and chrysostom, deducing the Christmas festivity from the first antiquity.   

Sect. 20. Strictures on §. 35. The author of the Constitutions a competent testifier when in accord with others. Justinus 's edict for Festivals reconcileable with the Apostolical usage of them. The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmas day. Objections against the 25th of December answered. The controversy in chrysostom about the day, not the Feast. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His words full for the Apostolicalness of both.  
WHat now follows §. 35, is so far from having weight in it, that I must not allot any solemn answers to it, the lightest strictures will be more proportionable.  
As when of my mention of the Author of the Constitutions he saith, this will weaken my cause the more, because they are generally accounted spurious, This sure must be very unjust, that what was confirmed so newly from Origen, Cyprian, and chrysostom, should not only not gain, but lose strength by the addition of the Constitutions, which besides that they are acknowledged ancient by all which least believe them Apostolical, are known to be designed to imitate that antiquity they pretend to, and are never justly rejected, but when that which they affirm is found discordant to the affirmations of other writings of undoubted antiquity, which having no place here, there is as little room for the Diatribists censure.  
So what he concludes from Justinus' edict (which I mentioned) that it was a proof that the Apostles did not institute it, is already answered by saying that the Apostles practice being all that is pretended for the institution, the edict of the Emperor for the Universal observation of it is very reconcileable with that, (and so also with the usage of the first ages after the Apostles in case it be divolved no higher than these, as the several decrees of Magistrates Civil and Ecclesiastical for an universal observation of the Lords day are sure perfectly reconcileable with the Apostolical original thereof.  
And this was there evidenced by the 20000 Christians that were burnt by Diocletian on this day (sure long before that edict of justinus (at which time saith the 
Niceph: l. 7. c. 6.  Historian, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all that were called Christians of all ages assembled in the Church to celebrate the nativity, And to that, it seems he hath no other return, but his advertisement that Nicephorus saith it was Maximinus, that was thus bloody, Maximianus, I suppose he would have said, who reigned with Diocletian, and then it comes to the same pass, and the truth is acknowledged, which soever the name were.  
So against resolving the day of this festival to be Decemb. 25. his proofs are extraordinary; 1. from the Doctor himself, that it was called Midwinter day, which is a fortnight before. But that hath already been answered, the variation being evidenced to be from the want of exactness in our Calendars, not from any doubt of the day.  
2dly From the opinion of many Divines, that our Lord died when he was 33 and halfyears of age, or near unto 34, as saith he, the Doctor saith, Qu. 1. §. 10. What Divines these are that thus calculate, I am not told, nor how competent they are to be confronted to the censual Tables, from whence S. chrysostom fetches the day of his birth: But the luck of it is, that citation from the Doctor was easily consulted, and on view of the place, there is no more but this, that Christ preached the will of his Father three years or four together, which I thought had signified no more than for some uncertain space betwixt 3 or 4 yeears; And if he were born in December and died in April, what difficulty is there in this calculation? or what needed the Diatribist to have cited from the Doctor the words [near 34.] when he knows there is nothing to that sense said by him?  
The 3d thing (without which his undertaking to mention many, will be a faileur) which may make us doubt of the truth of the calculation, is the younger date of the Arabic Codex of the Counsels; But when that Codex was dated, he hath not told us, And if it were later than I thought, it may yet possibly speak truth, and so that will give us no reason of doubting.  
His last proof is, that the Doctor is upon Ifs, and 'tis probable, And I heartily wish the Diatribist would but speak probably, and till he doth so, that he would not have such aversions to the Doctors Ifs, I mean, that he would use diffidence, when he pretends not to demonstrate.  
I add nothing to his returns about the Epiphany, but leave them to be judged by the §§. to which they are opposed.  
And for the large view of the place in chrysostom, and his dispute against that Father, my answer is very brief, that all that I attempted to prove from chrysostom, was the due timing of the feast on the 25th of December, and that being done beyond controversy, I pretend not to derive other decisions from that testimony, but leave them to stand on their own basis.  
Only when from some words of chrysostom, he at length concludes the authority of the Church in constituting, and celebrating this festival in all ages much shaken, I must remind him that that Father's words which affirm it a question at that time, belong not to the Festivity itself, but only to the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  particularity of the day, whether it were to be kept on the 25th of December or on some other day, and accordingly his proofs proceed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this is the very time; And though some doubted whether this were a new, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient day of the festivity, yet saith he, others defended it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it was old & ancient (or original, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, and is all one with 
l. 1. contr. Marc. c. 5.  Tertullias quod ab initio, as that with quod ab Apostolis) and from these ancient, if not these first timas (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly imports, and so again in 
Ib.  Tertullian, ordo ad originem recensus) it hath been manifest and illustrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira, from East to West, that sure with him signifies, all the world over.  
And so still this dispute, which side soever was in the right, is founded in a supposition of the feast itself being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original and from the beginning, And indeed if the first proof which he offers for it be considered, 'tis not imaginable how he should say more to the asserting of the Apostolicalnesse both of the Festivity and the day also.  
That this is the season, saith he, on which Christ was born, the first demonstration is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the feast was so speedily promulgate every where, & ascended to so great an height, & flourished, adding that as Gamaliel said of the preaching of the Gospel, that if it were of men it would come to nought, but if of God, ye cannot dissolve it, lest ye be found fighters against God, the same he might say confidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this day (not of the Gospel, as the Diatribist afterward saith, he thinks he means, but cannot really do so in this place, against such 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  express words) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing, or because it is from God, therefore 'tis not only not dissolved, but every year advances, and becomes more splendid, and yet farther adding (in the words recited by the Diatribist, and by omitting the former, rendered capable of being misunderstood) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing the preaching (of it certainly, i. e. of the day, or else it can have no coherence with the feast or antecedents and whole contexture) in a few years took possession of the whole world, though tentmakers and fishermen, unlearned and idiots brought it amongst them.  
How far this is now from doing prejudice to the Universal observation of this day in the Apostles times, I leave the Reader (and, if he please, the Diatribist also) to consider.   

Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion. Strictures on some passages in it.  
WHat now remains is by way of reply to my conclusion, that the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivals of the universal Church must be looked on as an act of affected departure from the universal Church of Christ in all ages, and not only from the reformed Church of England.  
This, saith he, is an heavy charge, if it can be proved. And for that I must now refer myself to the premises in that treatise and in this defence, nor indeed can it be reasonable that I descend to any other way of probation or vindication, till this which I have used be invalidated; For a conclusion being (as this is) deduced from the premises, what more can be required to establish the conclusion, than the confirmation of the premises?  
And therefore as it is against all laws of Discourse for the Diatribist to confute or deny, or make answer to the conclusion, any otherwise then by refuting the media, which have inferred it; so must it be in me, to reply to such offers of answer, which can never signify any thing, as long as my premises stand in force, especially if it proceed by denying those things, which this vindication hath undertaken to prove, without offering answer (as without the spirit of divination it could not) to those proofs.  
For example, The Diatribist here begins with this affirmation, that I have not proved that the universal Church of the first age hath observed any of the Festivals, And I have here evidently proved that Easter was observed by Philip and john the Apostle, and from them received by the asiatics, or Eastern Christians and so likewise by the Western from S. Peter and S. Paul, and so sure there is no farther need of refuting this affirmation.  
And the same might in like manner appear in each ensuing step of his answer, and the rule by which he is content to be judged applied exactly to the condemning him in this very business of the Easter Festivity, which is of as much force, as if it equally appeared of every other of the great Festivals: But still this were to repeat what hath here been already said, and vindicated from all his exceptions.  
In stead whereof I shall only gather up what hath any thing of news in it. And 1. let me admire his candour, when he will not stick to grant this rule to be good, that whatever doctrine or practice hath the concordant attestation of the Churches of the Apostolical time, while they were yet alive, it was Apostolical] but withal adds as if he had been too liberal, that the negative is a surer rule to judge by, (as if indeed any predication could be surer than that which is identical.)  
Next his argument against the concordant attestation of the primitive ancients concerning Apostolical tradition drawn from Papias' affirmation of the Milennium, had not, I confess, formerly been produced, but it falls out that I have 
Qu. 1. §. 38. and in the Def. of L. falkland's Tract of Infall.  elsewhere sufficently cleared it.  
Thirdly, his citation p. 197. from the Pract. Cat. p. 181. that Christmas was not universally solemnised till about 400 years after Christ, and after (a little more to his advantage) till at least the 400 years, p. 201.] is both as to the words and as to the sense very much misreported; The place is ready to be seen, and lies thus. The authority by which this festival stands in the Church, is that of the practice of the Primitive universal Church, and this made appear 1. from the immemorial observation of it, 2. from the ancient Fathers speaking of it as an ancient usage (in the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even now given) 3. by the testimonies not only of the author of the Constitutions (ancient though not Apostolical) but of Origen, of Cyprian, of Ammianus Marcellinus, speaking of julian 1300 years since, and mentioning the Epiphany as a known festival of the Church, and so both that, and Christmas of a far greater antiquity, than the time of julian. Lastly, by the words of chrysostom, that though the particular day December 25. was not fixed at Antioch till his time, yet from Rome over all the West it had been so observed from the most ancient records of Christianity, Upon which my conclusion is, that it appears at least to be an Ecclesiastical constitution very early received over all the West, the far greatest part of Christendom, and within 400 years universally solemnised, and this a very competent authority, when withal 'tis so probable, that it may be more, according to a 
In cis quae scriptura nec jubet, nec prohibet, illud est sequendum quod consuetudo roboravit, quae sine dubio de traditione manavit. Tertull. de coron. milit. & Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi potestate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. Aug. de bapt. con. Donat. l. 4. c. 23.  rule of the Fathers, That very ancient and general usages, whose beginnings are unknown, may be resolved to be of Apostolical institution or practice etc.  
This I have thus transcribed from that place, to demonstrate what fidelity there was in this citation, not only in applying that to the Festival, which belonged peculiarly to that particular day Dec. 25. but also in affirming from me, that it was not universally solemnised till about 400. years and till at least the 400. year (which leaves it free to be of a dote yet later) when I say 'tis so probable that it was of Apostolical institution or practice, that the feast of Epiphanie was spoken of, as a known festival long before that time, and the feast of Innocents', attending this of Christmas affirmed by Origen to be by the holy Fathers according to the will of God commanded to be for ever celebrated in the Church, and only added, that it appears to be at least an Ecclesiastical institution very early received over all the West, and the far greater part of Christendom, and within 400. years universally solemnised.  
What can be more visibly unjust than this? or what heed can be given to testimonies thus transformed into shapes, which the writer never dreamed of, and yet from them conclusions deduced such as here follow in this place of the Diatribist, that my rash zeal hath carried me beyond the bounds of Reason and Religion.  
To which expression of his all that I have to say is, 1. That my conclusion was inferred out of premises, not dictated by zeal, 2 die. That it affixed no censure on any person, belonging only to those who should be found guilty of it, and so was wholly designed to ends of charity, to reform, not to reproach any: 3. That if there had been any thing of rash, or bitter in it, it might have admonished the Diatribist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be so soon guilty of greater sharpness; As it is, I must only infer, that it seems the guilty person hath the privilege of accusing and judging in any form of language, and so I shall not be so unseasonable as to admonish him of the injustice of it, at a time when it is so improbable he will reap profit by it.  
There is now nothing behind but his fastidious reflections upon three Quaestions which I had returned to the Author of the 16, Quaeres; But because I see he likes not the Quaestions in my terms, and in his proposing of four others, inserts particulars, wholly rejected by me, as that of [parts of worship] adding [as it is propounded, §. 9] (but I hope not by me so propounded) of abuse to superstition and profaneness, etc. I shall be as little obliged to accept them in his terms or tempted by the nature of the task or by the probability of the success of it with this Diatribist) to begin new desputes at this time; It is not amiss that we shake hands for a while and commune each with his own heart in stillness: And so I heartily take my leave of him.    
The End.  

ERRATA.  
Page Line Read 1 38 so full 3 26 if we 12 3 species 14 10 whither with 18 22 without 24 29 superstitious 25 38 destructive 26 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 38 3 that without 39 8 in it 42 7 of other 45 11 deal to 48 13 rerumque  25 I shall 75 24 worships 80 34 of this 83 38 institutione 86 17 of my sense 28 36 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 108 26 rendering, These 109 11 and 113 3 words 116 6 on mine 117 28 of, not 129 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 150 2 Will-devised 152 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  30 deal be 154 12 place all 171 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 180 38 on his 187 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 192 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 206 16 41. 207 35 depredicates 208 2 & St 213 20 proposes 224 10 gloriosè 228 32 it 229 4 deal, 237 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 239 38 rendered 243 29 downward 250 2 hither 251 32 reach 268 18 entrance 272 1 wish a 279 7 after be add,  17 be it two 286 17 whose  22 think  
p. 10. in marg. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 48. in marg. l. 1r. Chalcidius.  
p. 131. marg. li. penult. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.