THE ACCOUNT Audited and Discounted: Or, a Vindication of the threefold DIATRIBEE, Of 

1. Superstition,  
2. Will-worship,  
3. Christmas Festival.   Against Doctor Hammonds manifold PARADIATRIBEES. By D. C. Preacher of the Word at Billing-Magn. in Northamptonshire.  Ephes. 4.15. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ.  
London, Printed by Ralph Wood, for M. Wright, at the King Heads in the Old Bailey. 1658.   


1. The Preface of D. H. returned.  
1. THat Dr. Hamond hath taken great (and needless) pains, to show me the infirm parts of my threefold Diatribe, with, and against himself, of Superstition, Will-worship, and Festivals, (which came abroad above a twelvemonth before.) I am now obliged to take notice, and to design a few days (for which he hath had months) to vindicate that little David from his great Goliath, his Voluminous Discourse; which surely needed not, had not the strength of mine been more, than he will willingly acknowledge.  
2. His two former of those three Tracts, I had never seen nor heard of, till the time I was referred to them in his third of Festivals, Page 425. where he sends his Reader to them, and to his Practical Catechism, for Arguments against the Superstition, and Will worship, charged upon his Festival: And what ever his Design was, to remove (as he says) those two charges against the Church; and what ever the success thereof was, I know not. This I am sure of, taking those words of Superstition and Will-worship, in the generally received sense of most Reformed Divines and Churches, he hath not freed himself, and others his Associates, from those charges, nor at all demonstrated them to be Calumnies. The Church therefore may be discharged of those Accusations, though he and some other of her Sons, do justly lie as guilty under them. I desire the Reader (as he does) that he will but calmly and indifferently review the Treatises on both sides, and then give sentence.  
3. Particular Application of general Cases or Truths (its true) does stir the coals: and then complaints and contentions begin, when the Salt is applied to the raw and sorer parts. For this he might have had proof enough in his own bosom, nearer hand. For till the Charges came home to himself, rather than to the Festival; and his own opinion and practice were brought as proofs of his Superstition and Will-worship, in observation of his Festival, all was quiet. But when it was said, Superstition and Will-worship are of larger latitude than he takes them; and that by his own confession, he is concluded guilty of them, in other senses given by him; hence I fear arise this large Account, if not to excuse himself, yet to obscure and hid his guilt, by dissembling and concealing that particular charge, and all along answering nothing to it. As for me, that which engaged me in this contest, was, not only my Tract of the Sabbath, but a former Discourse of Superstition (with respect to Places) which was abroad, I believe before the former two Treatises of the Doctors, and inconsistent with his principles. And indeed, these three Tracts of his, by me singled out from the rest, have such Affinity or Consanguinity each with other, that I could not well deal with the last, but I must take in both the other. For it's in vain to go about to fasten Superstition and Will-worship upon his observation of his Festival, till we are agreed what those two are. It is not difficult for me to reconcile the Festival, with my Grounds for the Christian Sabbath, one in a week, by the fourth Commandment. For I can and do allow upon just occasions, a Day, or Days to be set apart by Superior Powers, with due Cautions; as is held out, both in Sab. Rediu. and in pag. 198. of my last Diatribe: yet cannot but abhor the Superstition and Will-worship introduced into his Festival, together with the Riot thereon attending.  
4. And this my sincere endeavour might have been for good, had it met with a spirit willing to yield to truth discovered. For the Doctor (I desire he may take notice of it) is by some of his own friends and admirers, held to have pelidae stomachum, cedere nescii: must and will (say they) have the last word. And this I observe in this Account, when he is forced by better Reason to relinquish some notions as not consonant to truth of Scriptures; he does it so favourably to himself, as that there appears some reluctancy of spirit to acknowledge himself mistaken; I may give instances hereafter. For my part; I did but with a spirit of Meekness (with all due respects to his worth and person) show him some doubts and difficulties, and (as I thought) Weaknesses in his Discourses, with my Reasons rendered thereunto: (which his Alex: Aphrodisaeus would have taken for a great favour and honour) and he does not only slight my person, calling me commonly, the Diatribist; but my pains also, and professes, 
p. 4. n. 2.  [He is not by all my Diatribe so instructed, or improved, as to discern one real misadventure in those Discourses, and finds it impossible for him to be edified by my Charity.] Of his Misadventures, I shall give him an account in due time and place; this is his great Miscarriage, that he returns me hatred and scorn for my good will; sharpness for meekness, and reproaches instead of thanks; as shall appear hereafter.  
5. As we must be careful, [not to be affrighted from our obedience to Superiors upon every pretence of Superstition, etc.] so we must not be alured into Superstition, etc. upon every pretence of disobedience to Superiors: This latter is of greatest concernment, because no Authority can justify us in the least corruption of the Worship of God; God himself having severely threatened such, as under pretence of Love to him, 
2. Commandment  and his service, do indeed hate him, by introducing Worship to him, which he never commanded. As for those things [of a more sublime consideration, (as he speaks) the Free-will-offerings, well becoming a Christian to bring to Christ, and rewardable in an high degree, such as the highest Charities, Devotions, and most heroical Christian practices] we shall be far from degrading or defaming them, when they are clearly discovered and rightly distinguished. But how the Doctor insinuates secretly an opinion of his Adversaries, (which is utterly false, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all along his discourse) [That they conclude every thing to be criminous, which is not necessary; and all uncommanded practices unlawful,] which they say only of uncommanded Worship.  
6. My impartiality in examining what he wrote, was not with respect to his person, but to the Truth itself, which I thought I saw much obscured, if not oppressed by him. My end was the same with his, [The seasonable checking and reformation of some Vices (viz. Superstition and Will-worship) or the confirmation and increase of Virtue, to the glory of God, etc.]  
7. But I dare not be so confident, as he is, to boast in a manner, [That this hath been the only aim of all hitherto published by him; and so fully satisfied in himself thereof, that he doubts not to approve it to any that can make question of it.] What? even to God himself? Is not the heart deceitful above all things? Did not Paul think he aimed at God's glory in persecuting the Truth? Do not the Advocates of Rome confidently pretend the same end, with him, in propagating their Errors and Superstitions? Is not the Doctor himself a man, animal gloriae? Does not much learning and knowledge puff up? and cause the owners to start up new marks of self-reputation and vainglory? But this I can freely grant, [That in such Doctrines (as these before us) which have immediate influence upon practice, it is charity to endeavour the disabusing of all, and not to suffer any fruitful and noxious Error upon my neighbour,] which (if my heart deceive me not) was one ground of my undertaking his three Treatises.  
8. As for his Discourse of Infant-Baptism, both what he hath written, and what he intends to publish more, I shall wish it good speed: but I fear it will little prevail with his adversary, who is tenacious of Scripture evidence, but little moved by Customs of the Church, either Jewish or Christian. And his way of proving it (waving the Scripture grounds, whence it may fairly be deduced) may tend to weaken those Arguments of Scripture, and in the end, may serve to strengthen Traditions wherein the Scripture is silent. And this, I fear, was the Doctor's Design in his first Quaere for Resolving Controversies.  
9 He does very well to wish the Reader [the ease of a spectator, that it may be his lot to live peaceably and quietly with all men.] But I am sure this will not be long of him, who does what he can, to give some of his Readers (my self and some others) the labour of some months, if not years, (if our Replies be prolonged to the measure of his Answers) wherein how ambitious soever they be of Peace, it is violently wrested from them, by his drawing out the Saw of Contention by multitude of words.  
10. That he hath fortified himself (with what patience I know not) for the present undertaking, is visible enough, by the bulk of his Book, which will make it but little supportable to his Readers: For though he have not transcribed the several Sections of my Diatribe's, (which had been equal and fair to have done) but rather omits to take notice several times of four or five leaves together, where it was too hot or too heavy; yet hath he poured out a flood of words (as the Sepia her inbie stuff to delude the Fisherman) to drown a poor little Tract of fourteen, with well nigh forty sheets of paper. If I should hold proportion in my Reply, the volume will swell so big, that we may write upon it, Quis legethaec? Only this may be added; That (as if he wanted employment to set himself on work, and to trouble his Reader) he catches at every little oversight, 
See his Superst. sect. 32. intention, or, extension.  whether of myself or the Printers: as for instance, sometimes he complains of Figures, too many or too few; sometimes the mistake of a Letter, Intention for Intention, etc. whereof I shall give him an account in due time, by showing the same mistakes in his own; saying only now, It becomes not so grave a Doctor to catch flies, having so much greater work to do.  
11. Lastly, This I thought good to give the Reader notice of, That the Doctor hath obscured the business, by a new obstruse method of answering, both concealing my particular Sections, which he might easily have followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I did his; and also devising a new method of Chapters, Sections, Numbers; that his Reader must needs be put to much trouble to find out mine, and more to compare them with his: Whereas, if he had followed me, Section by Section, as I did him, every thing had been visible in its place, and easier to judge of. I shall not trouble the Reader to go seek for Chapter, Section, Number, in his discourse, but only point him to the page, and number, where he may readily find what is excepted to. Only first, I am engaged to follow him in his Chapter that concerns my Title Page, (for that hath not escaped his censure) and then that which takes notice of my Preface; and with all due speed to come to his Animadversions upon my particular Diatribe's.   

2. Of my Title pages.  
1. HE spoke afore (in his Preface) of my little partiality in examining his Tracts: 
pag. 1. n. 1.  but himself is more scrupulous in examining my very Title Pages; and the Scriptures themselves, by me prefixed, are called to Account, for standing there; especially that of Col. 2.4, 8. as intended for an Antidote against that Philosophy, etc. which Paul forewarns men there to take heed of. To which I shall only say, that I see no reason, why it might not be as lawful for me to set this Scripture before my Tract of Superstition, as for him to set the very same Scripture after his Tract of Superstition; for so it is, [Take heed that no man deceive you with vain words,] no doubt intended for a Antidote against Philosophy, etc. And what unkindness to, 
Num. 2.  and jealousy of Philosophy, I shown therein, was the very same, which himself showed in his; yea, [the same which Saint Paul then had amongst his Colosians.] Not, I suppose, the Gnostics Divinity (who were not then hatched) but that Philosophy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of False Apostles, risen newly out of the Sects of Philosophers, whom the Devil stirred up to corrupt Religion, with partly Phylosophycal notions, and partly Judaical genealogies, and Fables; as almost all Interpreters, besides himself, do understand those texts by him cited: 
n. 3 pag. 2.  And how conveniently this text was accommodated to any, to all my discourses, will be discerned by my answer to his 4 questions. 1. The text had no relation to Gnostick principles; and therefore none of theirs, are charged upon any of his Tracts: But enticing words, and subtle persuasions, with Phylosophycal notions and reasons (wherewith (many say) the Doctor is as well furnished, as any man) may there be found. 2. Thereupon it is not charged upon him, [as Heretical, or Heathenish, or as Gnosticisme, to maintain the celebration of Christ's Nativity, to have nothing criminous in it.] But this is charged upon him, [To make that day more holy, and a part of worship] (as some, with the Doctor have done, and is not yet denied in all this discourse of his) is justly censurable as criminous, either under the Head of Superstition, or Will-worship, or both. 3. No blameless Institutions of the Church (no not of Rome itself) are charged by any (that I know) for Despoiling of Christians, or Sacrileges, keeping them within Scripture bounds: But when they are made parts of worship, imposed as necessary, held as efficacious, as Gods own Ordidinances, or more strictly exacted than Divine precepts, etc. Then they will prove to be Despoiling of Christians, and sacrilegious; being but Tradition of men, in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Apostle speaks. 4. Rational, probable, demonstrative discourse, is not in the least averred to be deceit and beguiling, (which the Doctor uncharitably would have his Reader believe of me, not without a secret scorn) But then only (as the Apostle intended it) when Reason takes upon her to dispute against Religion, in Doctrine or worship, upon Phylosophycal notions, and carnal principles. And thus his four questions are answered; 
n. 4.  and now I hope, I am (with his leave) [qualified to justify the charitableness of my Title Page, and the propriety of my select Scripture] and I think no Reader found to question either of them.  
2. 
Pag 3. n. 1  The like exceptions are taken to the Scriptures, put in the Title Pages of the other Tracts, and the Latin sentences added thereunto: As first, that of Matth. 15.8, 9 is questioned, as not commodiously affixed to the Tract of Will-worship; because [it speaks of their urging some inventions of their own, as under obligation by Divine precept, etc.] Which whether they did or no, is under debate, (the contrary rather appearing in the Text being called, the Commandments of men, and Traditions of the Elders) and falls under consideration more fully hereafter. This we are sure of, they made those Inventions of men, Parts of the Worship of God; for that is charged expressly upon them; [In vain do they worship me, etc.] And in this respect, this text is commodiously affixed to the Tract of Will-worship. Secondly, Gal. 4.9, 10. is quarrelled for standing before the Discourse of Christmas: [being restrained to Judaical Sabbaths and Feasts, etc. and no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of the Nativity, then to the weekly of his Resurrection.] The text is not restrained only to Judaical days, but extends to any days made holy by men, and parts of worship, as those Judaical Feasts, for certain were. Neither can nor will the Doctor say, the observation of those Feasts, is absolutely unlawful & forbidden by that Text; as matters of Order, or Times of worship, (for then how can be justify his Easter, etc.) but only as they are accounted parts of worship, now abolished. But welfare his Good will to the Lords day! From the beginning to the end of his Discourse he is very careful to levil and equal the weekly Sabbath, the Lords day, with his Festivals; when he confesses a palpable difference, that the Lords day is of Apostolical (and so, Divine) institution; when his Christmas, is but 
* An Ecclesiastical constitution, pag. 294. n. 8. n. 3.  Ecclesiastical. Thirdly, the Latin sentences cannot escape his Inquisition: yet he is forced to dismiss them, with a full concession of the main question between us: For thus he professes; [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 the custom of commemorating of it, after this manner.] And why should we not now shake hands and agree? If this were all, the controversy were ended. For we have granted often, that any day, may upon just occasions, be set apart, and employed in prayers and thanksgivings, etc. Will this satisfy the Doctor, I doubt not. For first, this were to vilify and depress his Christmas Festival, to any common day, when prayers and thanksgivings are tendered. 2. This confutes himself, who makes and finds other worship of God upon that day; making it an Oblation to Christ, an Holy day, a part of worship, as great a sin to labour upon it, as on the Lord's day, etc. as was fully charged upon him in that Diatribe: which how he will avoid, or rather evade, we shall take notice hereafter. This is the sum of what he hath said to my Title Pages: only he forgot to take notice of one particular; 
See Willw. S. 1. the Reverend and learned Doctor.  viz. my respective Titles given to himself, [The Reverend and learned Doctor Hammond. Doctor Hammond, The Doctor all along, not one word or title unbeseeming him to receive, or me to give.] But after once or twice giving me my Name, his common Title is, (which some think hath a little scorn in it) The Diatribist: but for my part, 
This Diatribist. often.  I pass not, what he calls me; I will not retaliate, by calling Him, as I might, The Accountant, etc. but shall with due respects, give him rather strong reason, than the least ill, or unbecoming language.   

3. Of my Preface.  
MY Preface, friendly and lovingly intended, to show him the grounds of his mistakes, is not very friendly taken, but rejected, either as false or useless; and for [a brief return to it I am beseeched to reserve my discourse of causes, 
p. 4. n. 2.  till the effects shall be so visible as to call for it.] I am sorry that I have spent so much labour and love in vain. My good will however was to be accepted, and acknowledged. I took it for granted, as well as proved, (and so others think) that I had showed him his Diseases and Mistakes, in the Tracts themselves. My method perhaps was not so proper to show the causes in a Preface, which might better have come in a Postscript, when the Disease was discovered. Let him forgive me this wrong, and when he is convinced of his mistakes, then consider, whether I have not hit upon the causes thereof. That he [should not discern one misadventure in those discourses, is to me very strange; when I can show his acknowledgements, of four at least; 1. He had said, Superst. s. 12. [That Festus had put Jesus under the vulgar notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or dead Heros, so meaning the worship of him, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which being charged by me, as a criticism strained; he answers, p. 63. n. 7. I shall not, because I need not make it a controversy with any: yet pretends to give a reason to incline him to that sense, 
Will-wor. sect. 7.  but how unsufficient it is, see my Animadversion upon that p. 63. n. 7.2. He rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Col. 2.23. by [some real matter of Piety in them, or some what of Piety in them] (which sense he often in this Account, would gladly fix upon it.) But fairly retracts it as false, (that it is but a show of wisdom, not a reality) p. 111. 10. and oft elsewhere, see p. 117. n. 10. and my Notes upon that place. 3 He had said, Will-wor. s. 27. [The main crime that defamed the Pharisees, was their proud despising of other men.] But here p. 171. n. 4. he says, [Hypocrisy was the Pharisees chief crime, and the fuel to their pride.] 4. Another mistake charged on him was, his changing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This he acknowledges to be his presumption, & desires my pardon. p. 121. h. 20. I might add another of his glosses, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be meant of Paul's superstition, not of the Jews; p. 63. n. 6. Yet in part, though faintly, retracted, p. 65. n. 10. These are enough to conclude that he might, if he would have seen more than one misadventure in those discourses: But who so sick, as he that thinks, and says, he is well: such a patiented will rather complain his Physician does him wrong then acknowledge his sickness. Just so the Doctor deals with me; ostrado illi lutum, aspergit me luto. I labour to show him his mistakes, & he charges me with four at least, and calls them no less than Injustices: which are these, First, 
n. 3.  [That I compare Superstition and Will-worship (the subjects of his discourses) with Heresy; when as superstition, the worshipping of Daemons, is worse than heresy, etc.] I shall only remind him, that I was then speaking of Superstition in general, & in the worst sense; & that's confessed to be as bad, yea, worse than Heresy: yet surely, as some superstition is not so sad, as some heresy; so some heresies are as bad as the worst of superstition; As the Arian & Socinian error against the Deity of Jesus Christ, will not be denied, I think, to be as bad, as worshipping of a Daemon. God's truth, is equally as dear to him, as his worship; and the violation of them equally criminous. How, and why, Superstition, & Will-worship, are as abominable to God, as profaneness (and I may add, as heresy,) 
Superst. Superst. Preface.  I have elsewhere discovered, to which I refer the Reader. But I did not charge these crimes upon our Church, or upon her Rites & Festivals, as they were intended by Her, (though the Doctor would infuse this opinion of me into his Reader.) I said [Some men account them rather their virtues, than their crimes,] not our Church: I meant it of Papists first, and then of some of her Sons, who outran and dishonoured their Mother, by corrupting her Doctrine, on the one side, and her Rites and Ceremonies on the other; making them parts of worship, with a stricter observance, then of the Institutions of Christ, or his Apostles, etc. It is therefore a first Injustice in him, to tax me, [for styling uncommanded Rites or Festivals, with the name of Superstitions: or accusing them to be as bad as heresy.] And to say, [That Will-worship, in that one place where it is used, hath no manner of ill, but good character set upon it,] is now nothing but a begging of the question, as well as contrary to the Judgement of most and best Interpreters as shall appear hereafter. Yea though joined with humility in that place, where Humility (in the sense there) is by them held as abominable, as pride and heresy is.  
Secondly, 
p. 5. n. 4.  the next Injustice is found in my parenthesis, (some men account these their virtues, rather than crimes) [which if applied to him, or any Prostant living, is very unkind and unprovoked, etc.] But this charge is easily removed; I speak still indefinitely of Superstition & Will-worship, in the worst sense; naming neither him, nor any Protestant living: yet sure of this, that besides Papists, some men, and Protestants do count that devotion their virtue, which other men (taking it for superstition, etc. in the worst sense) do account their crimes; which how it can be made good, shall be considered hereafter. In the mean time, this is his second Injustice, to think I shall apply that to him, which I intended only to the guilty; which now he discovers.  
Thirdly, 
n. 5.  my next Injustice is, [That I have not where demonstrated Will-worship, to be as criminal as Heresy.] To which I say, there is but a little difference between Superstition and Will-worship; the latter, in the bad sense, (acknowledged by the Doctor himself, pag. 96. n. 6.) being but a species of the former: If Superstition be (as it is) demonstrated to be as criminal as heresy, Will-worship will partake with it in that viciosity. I have no more to say to this section and number, 
n. 5.  but to note a figure of one, (1.) without a second; which after he taxes me for.  
Fourthly, 
p. 6. n. 1.  another mistake is, that I charge him to affirm, [That a man cannot be too Religious in intention, or degree, or extension and number of Ceremonies, 
Of Superst.  etc.] First, for intention; this he affirms, sect. 33. [I shall without scruple deny, that there is any such thing as Nimiety or excess in Religion; there is no possibility of being religious, in too high a degree: and this no man can deny, who knows that all his faults are omissions and defects, but never excesses of Piety or Religion;] this he adds to justify what he had said before. But first, does he not expressly confess the charge? He denies any such thing as Nimiety or excess in Religion, in regard of Intention, or degree: how then was I mistaken in charging him with it? 2. His reason rendered is as strange; [Because all our faults are omissions and defects, not excesses of Piety.] Does not the Doctor prevaricate here? First, by varying the words, from (in Religion) to (of Religion,) There may be excess in Religion, (which yet he denies) though speaking properly, there is no excess of Religion; so the great Schoolman explains himself; [Not that in true construction, a man can give God too much, but rather too little, in not giving him what he requires.] Yet he says, [Superstition is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess,] that is, an excess in Religion. Then secondly, in saying, [all our faults are omissions and defects, not excesses of Religion.] For if he acknowledge any superstition in Religion at all, that must be an excess in Religion; or else what differs superstition from no Religion, or profaneness, which is a defect? And again, to make all our faults (in Religion) to be omissions, he denies any sins of commission in the first Table: 
The extremes are on our sides, superstition; on the other, irreligion. p. 16. n. 28.  and so the old distinction is lost: is there no difference, between Polytheisme, having many Gods, and Atheism, in having none? are both these defects and omissions in Religion? and so of the other Commandments. In a word, is it not an ordinary English phrase, to express an excess in any thing we overdo, to say, Such a man is too just, too wise, too frugal, etc. and why not also too religious, when a man will tender more worship to God than he requires. This is but a logomachy, and we shall meet with it again.  
But as if he wanted work, 
n. 3.  and had measured the former objection, he starts another, which I thought not on, from Eccles. 7.16. and gives his answer, or rather his own gloss, [Be not righteous over much, be not over much wicked: The answer is obvious, the former words are the worldlings objection, taking that for excess of duty which brings any damage; and is answered in the other words; The fears and, hence, impious practices of worldlings, are the readier path to ruin] There are other senses given of these words, by others, and as obvious as this of the Doctors; this for one; [Be not righteous over much, neither make thyself over wise (wiser than God) in making more Commandments, or duties, than God hath made: Be not over wicked neither be thou foolish; to make fewer Commandments, or lesser number of duties than God hath made; both ways thou dost but hasten thy own destruction.] The Doctor came very near this exposition, when pag. 16. n. 26. he glossed that text of Deut. 4.2. forbidding all Additions to the word; thus [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, etc.] But let him abound in, & hug his own sense; yet this advantage I make of it, that it need not here be strange, to say, Too Religious, or Religious overmuch; when the Scripture uses the parallel phrase, of righteous over much, and over wise, etc.  
For extension, 
p. 7. n. 5.  or number of Ceremonies, the Doctor, is not so peremptory and express, to deny excess therein; but gives his vote, [That they be few and wholesome.] And then adds, [That not the Rites, but only the multitude of them is superstitious:] But doth he not again deny this, when he says; [If they be wholesome tending to edification, than there is little reason to accuse them of excess, etc.] Multitude of Ceremonies, if wholesome, are no excess, nor superstitious: yet I said, even the multitude of Ceremonies, are prejudicial to the simplicity of Gospel worship; and so Superstitious; to which he says nothing here nor there. 
Rites or Circumstances, are absolutely necessary to Religion. p. 7. n. 5. Ceremonies only. n. 6. Circumstance of time, or place, or gesture. p. 99 n. 15. Ceremonies, and uncōmanded worship. p. 36. n 12. which seems to make Ceremonies, worship.   
But before we go any further, it will be requisite, that we clearly understand, what the Doctor means by Ceremonies, for he is confused enough in this whole discourse; sometimes he speaks of Ceremonies, sometimes Rites and Ceremonies; otherwhere Circumstances and Ceremonies, and sometimes Circumstances alone, as if he promisovously used them all for the same thing: now Circumstances of worship, some time, some place, etc. are absolutely necessary to Religion; so he of Superst. s. 34. So I said, Superst. s. 28. and therein we are agreed: But for Rites and Ceremonies, to be brought into the worship of God (besides what are commanded) there is no necessity; and it's controverted, he knows whether any such may be instituted, and added in the worship of God: There is usually a difference put by Divines betwixt Rites and Ceremonies on the one side, and Circumstances in Religion on the other. I desire therefore to know, what the Doctor means by Rites or Ceremonies; if the same with Circumstances, there is nothing more to be said, but that the Doctor is confused and ambiguous: if distinct, then let him tell us, 1. What he intends by Rites and Ceremonies, giving the definition of them; 2. Whether there be any distinction of Ceremonies in Religion, of which some are lawful, others unlawful. For the first, a Ceremony hath generally by all Religions, been held to be an external part of Religion; thus among heathens the School-man tells us, 
Aq. 12. q. 99 a. 3. Cicero: speaking of Religion, says, Cultum Ceremoniamque offered. Ib. as all one. In Exod. Tom. 1 p. 148.  Ceremoniae vocatur, quasi munia, i. e. dona cereris: ad significandum cultum divinum apud Latino's. Amongst the Jews, Ceremonies were certainly parts of the worship of God. And amongst Papists, they are so esteemed. Hence that definition of Tostatus; [A Ceremony is a certain observation, or special manner of worshipping God determined by the sole command of the Lawgiver;] And that of Salmeron the Jesuit is to the same purpose, Ritus colendi Deum: A Rite of worshipping God; cited p. 147. n. 24. In this sense, a Ceremony or Rite, and a necessary Circumstance in Religion, are at a vast difference; and should the Doctor take it in the ordinary sense, he will be confuted by himself, p. 11. n. 11. & p. 12. n. 13. unless he can help himself, by some distinction; 
De effect. Sacr. l. 2. c. 29.  Bellarmine and his fellows, will help him to one; [Ceremonies are either natural, or instituted; natural, as to look up to heaven, to lift up our hands, and to bow our knees, when we pray unto God.] These the Doctor acknowledges, when he speaks of significant Ceremonies: Superst. s. 36. [When a Ceremony naturally signifies the thing I am about, and properly floweth from it.] Of such there is no question between us. Instituted Ceremonies, are such, as are determined by the sole command of the Lawgiver: as Tostatus said afore. Upon which account, Ceremonies will again be distinguished, by the Authors, the Lawgivers; that is, they are instituted, either by God, or the Church. Those of God's Institution, are lawful and necessary; as those appointed the Jews, and our Sacraments, which may be called Ceremonies, and fall under the definition given, as Rites, or Modes, of worshipping God, in the Gospel. And these are Substantial parts of worship; as well as Moral worship is: For it must be remembered, that the worship of God is either Moral, (which is the same with Natural worship,) such as, to Love, Hope, Trust, Fear God, etc. or Ceremonial, (which is the same, with instituted worship. 
Vbi supra.  The School-man said well, Ordinatur homo in Deum, etc. [Man is ordered towards God, not only by the inward acts of his soul, (as those afore) but also by some exterior works, by which he professes his service of God; and those works are said to belong to the worship of God; which worship is called a Ceremony, etc.] Now of such Ceremonies, as are instituted by God, there is no controversy: The question than will come to this issue, whether the Church may institute any Ceremonies in Religion: which the Doctor so much declined to speak to, when it was by me twice propounded: once in my Preface, and again of Fest: but hither he must come, will he, nill he; for of Ceremonies the judgement of the Romish party is this, [That all Ceremonies are superstitious, which are not of divine Authority, either immediately, or mediately.] Thus the Jesuit Salmeron; Omnis ritus colendi Deum, qui à Deo non est, nec a Spiritu Sancto per Ecclesiam traditus, etc. [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.] Now if we take out but those words, (by the Church) which is the very question betwixt them and Protestant Divines, betwixt the Doctor and me; whether the Church hath such authority to institute Ceremonies: unless the Doctor will agree with them, that the Institutions of the Church are from the Holy Ghost, and Divine; (which yet he hath not asserted, though he comes very near it, as we shall hear below) the former part of those words, will conclude him guilty of Superstition, in the judgement of a Jesuit; [Every Rite of worshipping God, that is not delivered from God, but invented by the will of man, is superstitious.] Let the Doctor himself then state the question: 
p. 99 n. 5. The controversy belongs only, to the Circumstances of time, place gesture, of the Churches appointing or voluntary observing.  thus he does it; p. 85. n. 7. [Whether every devised Rite or Ceremony, not commanded by God, be superstitious.] The affirmative whereof, a Jesuit hath asserted for me; and unless the Doctor equivocate in the words, Ceremony or Rite, and say, he understands it of a Circumstance only, he cannot possibly escape the guilt of Superstition. And this, I foresee will be the only Loophole whereout he will creep; either making all Ceremonies but Circumstances of worship: or all Circumstances of worship, to be Ceremonies: partly because it's true, that some in themselves considered, Circumstances, were by God made also Ceremonies, or part of their Ceremonial worship, as the Temple, and Festivals; and partly because I find him thus evading hereafter, p. 87. n. 13. [The time or place, when instituted by God himself, is as truly a Circumstance of worship, as when instituted by man, etc.] Of which more in its place: at present I say, Time and Place in their own nature, are but mere Circumstances, it's the Institution of God that makes them Ceremonies, or Ceremonial worship; but I think the Doctor will not say so of the Institutions of the Church; or if he do, he will be self-confuted: grant them, that some Ceremonies are also Circumstances of worship; yet are not all Circumstances, also Ceremonies; which they must be, if the Doctor take them both for the same thing; and this discovers his Ambiguities, Equivocation, and confusion in the several terms, by him used, of Rites, Ceremonies, Circumstances, as Synonyma's in this discourse. A second miscarriage here is, that he takes for granted by his Adversaries, [That the use of Ceremonies when they are Significative, may be allowed among Christians.] For so he says; 
p. 7. n. 5.  [If the Disputers will but yield this, that even when they are significative, the use of Ceremonies may be allowed among Christians, I shall then give my vote, that they be paucae & salubres, etc.] Which he knows, or may know, they peremptorily deny; except in such cases, as I expressed; sect. 29. of Superstition: To which the Doctor says just nothing, having so fair an occasion offered him. And if he take the word Ceremony, for a Rite of worshipping God, that is in the ordinary language of Divines, for a part of worship; as any one instituted by men, will prove a Nimiety, Excess and Superstition, (and not the multitude only, as he often asserts) so in that notion, by a part of worship, himself hath renounced every Ceremony of man's devising and adding; 3. 
n. 6.  By granting they ought to be few, one would think he granted, there may be too many Ceremonies in a Church (in Religion) and then an excess in Religion, and so the observers too Religious: [No, (says be) this is no way a yielding a possibility that a man may be too Religious; but when too many Ceremonies are accompanied with inward neglects, there is not too much, but too little Religion, etc.] And why not both? too much Religion, in multitude of Ceremonies, (contrary to the Simplicity of Gospel worship) too little, in the neglect of inward duties; certain it is, those many Ceremonies, are made Religious; and are used in Religion, the worship of God; therefore the observers are too Religious: and there may be, and is an excess in Religion; as his insectile Animals, have too many legs, but too little blood; and so no calumny proved; For, for want of a distinction, he hides himself in equivocal terms; in one sense he cannot be too Religious, in another he may. 1.  
To which purpose, 
p. 8. n. 1.  I gave a double distinction, which he calls rather a perplexing, then clearing the way. I wonder with what eyes the Doctor looks upon other men's distinctions? does it not seem a paradox, that a man may be too Religious, in his Service of God, to whom all is due? needs it not an explication, or distinction to clear it? Did not the great School-man distinguish upon this proposition, [That Superstition, is an excess in Religion:] Is not my first the same with his, at least in sense? A man cannot give God more worship than he deserves, but he may give him more than he requires, and his Will is the Rule of our worship. But he excepts [The two last members of both his distinctions are the same] & so too much a Tautology, 
n. 2.  and that is a Nimietie. The Doctor was disposed to be merry and to show his wit: but sure there's no great wisdom in this exception: For 1. Are not both the distinctions true in themselves; considered asunder? if the former parts of them be distinct, and not the same, (as they are not) the distinctions are distinct and clear enough. 2. The second proceeds by way of gradation upon the former; that worship which God requires, is either natural, and there a man can hardly be too Religious; or Instituted, and there a man doing more than God requires, may be too Religious: that is, [In uncommanded worship, the least addition of worship, is too much, and such a man may be said to be too Religious;] which are my words: is not this plain enough? The third and fourth number are spoken to already. The next exception is, [His difference betwixt natural and instituted worship, 
p. 9 n. 5.  in this respect of Nimietie, is perfectly vain and useless, etc.] I pray, why so? is there not a difference between Natural, and Instituted worship? As also in respect of Nimietie, that there can be no excess (or very rarely) in natural worship, as in love, filial fear, trust in God, etc. but in Instituted there may; a man may add worship of his own, to that which is commanded by God. But his exceptions are useless and needless, being but a strife of words; First he says, 
n. 6.  [Prayer is as properly a branch of natural worship, as love, or fear, or trust; being first inseparable from trust. 2. A necessary and natural means of acknowledging God's fullness and our wants. 3. Containing under it thanksgiving, etc.] Here are mistakes enough, For first prayer is not as properly, that is, as fully a branch of natural worship as love, etc. For this is evident, that there may be natural worship of love, fear, etc. where there is no use of prayer; as in the blessed Angels and Saints: 
Of Super. s. 27. I say, prayer is natural, and prescribed worship.  and besides prayer, public prayer at least, is a part of Instituted worship: 2. Hence, it is not inseparable from trust, love, etc. for they continue when prayer shall cease: 3. Prayer and praising do also differ in themselves, (though we usually say, praises or thanksgiving is a part of prayer) and are not inseparable: for prayer shall cease in heaven, no need of prayer, because want nothing, 
1 Cor. 13. last.  but praises shall continue for ever, because have all things in God. 4. Faith and Hope, are natural worship as well as (if not more then) prayer yet they are not inseparable from love or prayer; but shall cease, (with prayer) when love and praises shall continue for ever: the Doctor made this Exception, to take occasion to empty his note book, and to show his Reading, for no use at all of it otherwise, unless it were, in the close, to vent a secret jeer; in these words; [Perhaps such evidences as these (out of Naturalists) are the Philosophy, against which the Reader was to be forewarned in the Title page,] As if no body had ever read them, or understood them but himself.  
But he excepts again; 
p. 10. n. 7.  to show the uselessness of my distinction, [That it is as possible to exceed in trust, in fear, in love, as in prayer.] Let him not equivocate, 
n. 8.  and then make this out: [Thus, he that so trusts, in God, as not to fear; he that so fears, as not to love; 
n. 9  he that so loves, as not to fear, etc. is an exceeder in trust, fear, love.] I pray now, first, does he not grant, (what equivocally he hath denied) that a man may be too Religious, by excess in natural worship, trust, fear love. [Such a man, is an exceeder in trust, in fear in love?] 2. Hear his reasons: [He that so trusts in God, as not to fear him etc. is an exceeder in trust, etc.] Which is, as if he had said; He that trusts not in God, (for such is he that fears not God) is an exceeder in trust; and so of the rest: for this is certain, he that fears not God, or loves not God, doth not trust him; and vice versa, he that trusts not God, etc. does not love him. These graces are inseparable in a gracious heart, and many more. And if he speak of saving trust, true filial fear, and love of God, there can be no Nimietie or excess in them. A man may pretend to trust, to fear, to love God, and do none of these, in true Interpretation: Saint John hath told us, That [he that loves not his brother, loves not God,] let him make what pretences he please. so it's said of some hypocrites, [They feared the Lord, & served their own Gods:] 2 Kin. 17.33. & in the next v. 34. [They feared not the Lord;] they feared him with a slavish fear, v. 25. because of the Lions, but they feared him not with a filial fear, which only deserves the name of the Fear of God: say the same of trust, he that pretends to trust God, and fears him not, neglects means, etc. This man presumes, but trusts not: so the Doctor, [We are wont to express it by presuming.] But then, I pray, is not presumption, an excess of hope? as despair is the defect; so is presumption an excess in Religion, in a part of natural worship; as despair is the defect, in the same worship, and so a man may be said to be too Religious. Though it be true also in another sense; those that so pretend to trust, fear, love God, and do not; are so far from being too Religious, that they are not Religious at all; and that's indeed a defect. What need then all this contention about nothing, if the Doctor would but understand my meaning, etc. The sum is this, He that in Religious worship, adds any worship of his own devising, is too Religious; this is an excess in Religion: And this is [no perplexing, nor leading the Reader into Maeanders, and needs no Oedipus] to resolve it.  
Let's hear how he will clear, 
p. 11. n. 11.  what I have clouded; he asks me a question; [Doth be mean in these words (more, and addition) any new Species of worship, neither prescribed by the law of nature, nor instituted by any positive Law of God? or doth he design only some Circumstance, or Ceremony, which is not particularly commanded of God, or the Word, the rule of worship? as time, place, gestures, etc.] I answer clearly, I mean it not of Circumstances named, but of new Species or parts of worship: (I observe only how he joins Ceremony with Circumstance, which ought not to be confounded, as I noted afore.) But what then? Before he take my answer, he runs away with this error, 
n. 14.  (the grand mistake of his whole book) that I mean it of Circumstances, and not of new kinds of worship; and thereupon expatiates for many sections, to fasten absurdities upon me, (to make me ridiculous to his Reader) which will now revolve upon himself; as one that wilfully mistakes and perverts the question, and fights with his own shadow: he knows, and hereafter confesses more than once; that I profess against this sense, of the question; what absurdity and Injustice than is this, to fasten it upon me? Yea here, n. 13. he says; [If I mean it of Species, or sorts of worship, than he never doubted to affirm with me, that all uncommanded worship, is an excess, if he please (an error he should rather say) a setting up that for worship of God, which is not worship.] Now I appeal all Divines, and indifferent Readers, whether the Doctor hath not yielded the whole, and main question between us? My whole scope and intention being, to beat down only uncommanded worship, not uncommanded Circumstances of worship; no nor all Rites and Ceremonies, unless they violate Scripture rules; of which hereafter. 2. Does not the Doctor here affirm with me, that uncommanded worship is an excess, an excess in Religion, which he afore denied so peremptorily? Let him call it, error, if he please, (there are errors in Religion, in excess, as well as defect) this I call an excess in Religion. 3. Yet fain he would evade all this, by saying; [Setting up that for worship of God, which is not worship, nay, perhaps quite contrary to worship.] If it be not worship, than indeed, it cannot be called an excess in worship: But is not this a prevarication? Is not false worship, worship as well as true? how else is worship distinguished (by all, and by himself) into true and false? do not the Species (so he spoke of new sorts of worship even now) partake equally of the nature of the genus? Indeed in true construction of God, false worship, is no worship of him, [In vain do they worship me,] yet they worshipped though. The Doctor may consider his Logic or Divinity here: which he often jeers me for hereafter.  
But (ex abundanti) if the Doctor will understand the question, not of Circumstances, but of Ceremonies added to the worship of God, (and thereby say some, made sorts, or parts of worship) I have, I suppose, proved, that he, with others, does make some Ceremonies, as Festivals, etc. not Circumstances, but sorts and new kinds of worship; the charge whereof, he never goes about to remove.  
It will be needless now to follow him, in prosecuting his absurd inferences, having removed the Antecedent, whence they must proceed; that I do not mean it of Circumstances unprescited, but of uncommanded worship: yet some things deserve to be taken notice of, and some questions answered.  
As 1. For prayer; 
p. 12. n. 17.  [What hath the Rule of Scripture, prescribed concerning the time of prayer? as morning & evening: and that both positively and exclusively? If so then by the standard of this Diatribist (this Diatribist, as this Publican) david's, or daniel's praying three times a day, must be criminous & abominable, etc.] and so he goes on with absurdities upon absurdities: But whom do they fall upon? but upon himself, who knows, I mean it not of Circumstances, but only of uncommanded worship: and yet goes on to scornful language enough; [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; and the doing so, I cannot resist to be a Nimiety, but not of Religion, etc.] I will not recriminate, let the Reader judge, 
p. 13. n. 18.  who deserves the name of Censor, or Dictator, in Religion most, the Doctor, or I  
A second question is; [How many set days, to be consecrated to the worship of God, for Fasting or Prayer, every week, or year, hath the rule of worship prescribed? law or Gospel? His answer to those will involve him in intricacies enough:] I answer clearly; 1. For every week ordinarily, but one day in seven; extraordinary are left to Christian liberty, and occasions. 2. Both by Law and Gospel, one day in a week, By the Law, in the fourth Commandment, requiring one, and but one in seven: and by the Gospel designing only one, the Lords day, as an holy day, and a part of worship: all other Jewish days, being voided by the Gospel. 3. By what words of the New Testament is the weekly observation of the Lords day commanded? I answer, for the number one in seven, the fourth Commandment resolves it; for the particular day, the first Apostolical Institution; which he hath oft confessed to be of Divine obligation. 4. The observing of other days, as Easter, and Pentecost, with the other Festivals, if made parts of worship, are expressly forbidden, Gal. 4. If as Circumstances of worship only, they are besides the question: And note this by the way, that it's no way probable, the Apostle would cry down the Feast of the Passover, and set up Easter, in its stead; or Pentecost, and set up Whitsuntide; as parts of Worship, I say, for so they are by some made and accounted. He that will resolve these questions any otherwise, will find himself involved in intricacies enough, as I have elsewhere showed.  
His other demands, 
p. 14. n. 19, 20, 21.  concerning gestures in Prayer, in Fasting, in , what proportions or degrees, as also, duties in the second Table, etc. they are all beside the question; the three first, as being but Circumstances of worship; the last, as being also no worship at all, of which our question is. But having thus digressed, to give him satisfaction if he will take it; we now return to consider what is said to my proofs of this proposition; [That a man may be to Religious, or exceed in Religion.] The first is; If addition may be made to the Rule of Religion, than a man may be too Religious: the consequence is proved, because, Addition to the Rule, is excess in Religion: the Antecedent, from Deut. 4.2. where all Additions to God's Commands are forbidden: what says he to this? He 
n. 22, 23.  says, I prove Idem per Idem: absurd enough if it were true; but he must be reminded, that the question was, whether a man might be too Religious; which he denied, and after my explication of it, by distinctions, I proved by this argument afore; which whether it be to prove idem per idem, 
n. 24.  let Logicians judge. As for the matter; he says, [The major is false, in stead of clear.] If it be false, it is in his sense, and not in mine; and if not clear, it is by his obscuring it; taking Addition to the Rule of worship, for adding some Circumstance of worship, which I meant, for Addition of worship itself: and he confesses, [That he indeed that introduces any new part of Divine worship, is a presumptuous assumer, doth more than be should, because that which he should not do.] Just the same that I maintain. Let him say, [He is too bold, that doth so.] I and others say, he exceeds in Religion, and is too Religious; presumption in the worship of God, by adding worship to it, being an excess  
But my Assumption is also questioned (upon the same wilful mistake, I fear) and my Scripture called to the bar, Deut. 4 2. [Doth he that prostrates himself in prayer, add to the word of God? 
p. 15. n. 26.  then sure, he that walks in the garden doth so too, etc.] How oft shall he be told, we speak of adding uncommanded worship, not of observing Circumstances of time, place, gestures, in commanded worship: But let us hear his learned gloss upon this Scripture. [The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God, not to make any change in God's commands, 
p. 16. n. 26.  either to pretend more liberties or fewer obligations; or again more obligations and fewer liberties: but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts.] That is, his precepts concerning his worship (as well as other duties of common life.) That is, (if I might gloss it) neither to add to, nor detract from his commands of worship, but to perform uniform obedience to God, etc. which is the very thing I have so long pleaded for.  
My second proof was from the School-man, who makes Religion a moral virtue, standing between too extremes, Superstition in the excess, and Profaneness, or no Religion, in the defect: This sure is plain and easy, but not to the Doctor. He grants the two extremes [On the one side superstition, on the other irreligion:] Then say I, he grants an excess in Religion, called Superstition, etc. But see what a dust he makes to cloud the business: [Superstition is of two sorts, 1. The worshipping of a creature; or, 2. Giving undue worship to God; and neither of these will serve to prove the Diatribists conclusion.] Unhappy man I, that cannot please the Doctor in any thing. These kinds of Superstition would serve the School-man, 
p. 17. n. 29.  to prove an excess in Religion, why not me? Not the first (says he) for [Then this must be his meaning, that a man may be a 
* The word is many Gods: any one or more with the true.  Polytheist, a worshipper of false Gods:] Why, that's true; and he that worships the true God, and others with him, exceeds in worship, and is too Religious: This he should have supposed my answer, and have spoken to it: but he leads his Reader away in a mist; saying, [But I hope, in this sense, he that observes the Ceremonies of the Church of England, and her Festivals, will not be said to be (a Polytheist, he should say) too Religious.] Still the same mistake; we are not speaking now of the Ceremonies, or circumstances of worship; but whether a man may be too Religious: but he is very jealous of his Festivals, lest they should be charged to be Superstitious, that makes him so often remind them. Yet be it so; it is not Polytheisme, nor Superstition to observe Festivals, in the first notion, of worshipping a Creature: but may it not prove to be Superstition, in the second of cultus illegitimus? 
n. 30.  [Here he will be more particular, in viewing and wieghing the words of Aquinas, referred to by me.] And here he makes a large excursion, to trouble his Reader, to little purpose: The question is this, [Whether unlawful (or undue) worship tendered to the true God, be not Superstition, and so an excess in Religion?] That it is Superstition, is proved by this, that it is made a Species of it, by the School-man: that it is an excess, is clear, because it is a branch of Superstition which is defined, by an excess in Religion; the sum (he says) is this; [That Religion is a moral virtue; as being a branch of Justice, in giving God that which belongs to him; according to some equality, in respect of God; equality, not absolutely, because we cannot give God so much as belongs to him; but considering what man is able to do, and what God will accept.] All this is well enough; Religion is a moral virtue, a Branch of Justice; which Justice, stands between two extremes, summum jus on the one side, which is excess, and nullum jus, which is the defect: so Religion stands, between two extremes, an excess, and a defect: But hear what he adds, [As for superfluity in such things as those, which belong to the worship of God, there can be none, saith Aquinas, as to the circumstance of quantity; I cannot (says the Doctor) do too much in the worship of God, I cannot offend that way; all the superfluity possible is in other circumstances; he names but three: 1. Cui non debet, exhibiting worship to a creature; (that was the first kind of Superstition.) 2. Quando non debet, at a time, when it ought not. 3. Prout non debet, in a manner wherein it ought not.] Is not this full to my purpose? that undue, or unlawful worship, 
p. 18. n. 31.  for the matter or manner, is superfluity, excess, and Superstition? [No, this is no competent testimony, to prove his conclusion, That every thing in the worship of God, which is not commanded by God, is too much.] But first, this is not my conclusion; it's falsely often fathered upon me. I say not every thing in the worship of God, (thus he varies the words, 
All uncommanded worship is an excess. p. 12. n. 13.  to evade himself and asperse me) is too much; but any uncommanded worship is too much: and to this, Aquinas testimony is full: for that he calls cultum illegitimum, which is not by Law commanded. [Sure (says the Doctor) every thing (thing again) not commanded, is not presently forbidden; and so offends not against the Prout debet, as it ought:] I say not, every thing not commanded is forbidden; but every worship not commanded, I say again, is forbidden: and we shall hear himself confess as much anon: whence my argument is thus enforced; [All worship forbidden, is unlawful, and too much, and an excess; but all worship not commanded, is forbidden: ergo.] The Major cannot be denied, the Minor is made good, thus at present: [All false worship of God, is forbidden; but all uncommanded worship, is false worship: ergo.] What the Doctor will say to this, I know not; but shall leave it to his consideration. For the rest in this, and next number 32. let him and Aquinas agree the matter; enough hath been said to them already.  
But in my third proof from the Doctors own confession; 
n. 33.  I am charged first with nonsense; partly because the Printer put in (not) and partly, because I, or he, left out (he.) Which if the Doctor had ingenuously considered, he might have found both sense and reason also, in the words alleged, thus: [The Doctor grants, there may be a nimiety or excess (in Religion) in adding 
* In adding, in a man's adding: and so he is an exceeder, etc. p. 19 n. 34.  to the commands of Christ, the Gospel rule, those things which belong not to it; and so he is an exceeder in the fear & service of God.] But yet it will not pass; [First, (without a second) the Doctor no where useth that phrase, a nimiety or excess of Religion.] But this is a very nicety, and strife of words: in his very sentence, he says; such a man, is [an exceeder in the fear (put sometimes for Religion) and service of God:] Is not that an excess of, or in Religion? But that's not all, we shall have the words ere long: 
n. 35.  [This fear of some thing which he fancies to come from God, when it doth not, is an excessive fear, more than Religion suggests to him; and yet the unhappiness is, this interposeth itself in Religion.] Mark, an excessive fear in Religion: but enough of such trifles. A greater matter than this, is; [That fear, neither is excess of Religion, nor indeed excess of fear, or of service of God; but the meaning is this, that in fearing and serving of God, he is guilty of some other excess, not of fearing God, but somewhat else, etc.] This, first, agrees not well with what is said below, that this excessive fear argued a defect of love, or Religion, 
See p. 30. n. 28.  not some other excess: And, second, this is to say and unsay; there is an excessive fear of God, and there is no excessive fear of God; Quo teneam modo, etc. He says again, 
n. 36.  of the man that fancies he ought by God's Law to kill his Father, and fears God's wrath, if he doth it not, [He is an exceeder in the service of God, if he do that in the service of God, which is contrary to it:] Mark, an exceeder in the service of God (thinking he shall do God good service:) is not this an excess in Religion, and doth not such a man serve God too much, as well as too little? exceed, and yet come short: and so in one sense, too Religious?  
The second ground of the Doctor's miscarriages, I said, was, [That he is of opinion, that excess in Religion, 
p. 20. n. 2.  is not well called Superstition, etc.] To this charge, he cries, not guilty; and consulting his 27. sect. and not finding it there, disclaims it. But he might conceive an error in the figure, 27. for 30. or that I meant not to limit my speech, to sect. 27. putting an, etc. after it, which might reach further: yet that the Doctor is unwilling to grant, [An excess in Religion, to be Superstition, or Superstition to be an excess in Religion] may reasonably be collected, thus, 1. Because he denies peremptorily, and that often, any excess at all in Religion; how then, can Superstition be an excess in Religion, etc. 2. That he defines Superstition, by Superstitum cultus; sect. 2. [Superstition in Latin, is most clearly, the worship of some departed from this world, etc.] As if this comprehended the full and whole nature of Superstition: which I opposing, we shall see anon, what he answers to it: 3. Yea more than this; at his 30. sect. having himself started the objection, [That Superstition may and doth, in some Authentic writers, signify a nimiety or excess in Religion;] He makes his return, by way of opposition, in four particulars; the second whereof is this; [For Christian writers, the use of a word, in this or that sense, is so slight and casual, that not sufficient to fasten an ill character on it.] The third is this, [That those Authors, who seem to come home to the point, are so few, or so modern, and of so small authority, that scarce worth producing.] The 4. calls it, [This supposed nimiety or excess in matters of Religion.] Would not any Reader conclude from hence, that it is the Doctor's opinion, [That Superstitin is not an exeess in Religion, nor excess in Religion, Superstition?] Opposing herein the Schoolmans' definition. He therefore now, will do that, which he should have done before, distinguish, upon excess in Religion: and promises, [to deal plainly, 
p. 21 n. 3.  and without all ambiguity.] (Which belike, he did not before.) Thus he says, [If by excess of Religion, he understand the doing of any thing, in the worship of God, which Gods word doth not command, (the only thing in controversy) than I stick not to deny, that this is Superstition, or that Superstition imports this excess.] But he knows, he varies the question; this is not the controversy, [Whether the doing of any thing in the worship of God be Superstition, etc.] What then? [If he shall flic to any other sort of excess and contend that to be it, it is the fallacy of ambiguities, etc.] He should have said, [If he understand the adding of any worship not commanded, to the rule of worship; [Then I grant this to be Superstition, and excess; but he hides himself in that ambiguous phrase; Of any other excess:] and tells not what it is, 
n. 5.  nor yet admits of my sufficient expression, what I mean by it, appearing by my proofs; viz. Addition to the Rule of worship; that is, Addition of worship not commanded; To which he says nothing; but cavils at the form of my first proof, and then runs to catch at a fly, an advantage of my words, of super statutum, 
n. 6.  above what is commanded, [As if I supposed that was the notation of the word Superstition;] And here, plays with his own shadow; to make me ridiculous, if he could, but rather himself: I only say, [It is an Addition to the Rule of worship, and so an excess, as super statutum?] And is not an Addition of worship to the Rule, super statutum? But I, added (to prevent this cavil, [Though the original be heathenish to signify Superstitum cultus; yet it's well applied by Divines, (and they learned, to make no comparison) to Additions to the Rule of worship, etc.] And this is sufficient to mar the Doctor's sport. But if I listed to make him work, and my Reader merry; I might call him to account for his Etymology, both of the word Superstitio, from Superstitum cultus, and also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify the same: For first, where is cultus to be found in Superstitio? 
Superstitio cannot by any Rules be deduced from any word in the Latin but Superstes. p. 22. n. 7. Than not from Superstitum cultus. From Super, & sto, not supper & cultus. p. 57: n 4.  The Orator he knows, fetches the first Origination of it, from the custom of some Parents, who night and day prayed, that their children might be Superstites, that is, live when they themselves were dead; and that practise of theirs, was called Superstitio: which might have been, though the opinion of the Heroes living, after departed this world, had not arose: yea, supposing that opinion, that such did live, were Superstites, in their spirits, yet they were not presently worshipped, but in process of much time, among the Heathens: And where is now, his Etymology of Superstitum cultus? Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he renders also Superstitum cultus; which is not to be found in the word; but Daemonum timor: 
* sce p. 30. n. 30. from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a trembling fear.  a slavish fear of the Gods, or Daemons: that it seems, was the prime use of the word, which after ages, applied to Religion in general; and others used it for Superstition. But see the luck of it, (they are oft his own words) he presently confesses, [That M. C. 
p. 22. n. 8. Yet several times he regests this false notion. p. 55. n. 4. p. 57 n. 3. & 4. p. 91. n. 8. p. 258. n. 2.  confesses, that the original of the word was Heathenish, to signify Superstitum cultus.] To what purpose then was all his vagary? why, I add, that it was well applied by Divines, to those Additions, etc. He asks, [What can be tolerably mean by this? can Divines do well to apply Superstitio to super statutum, when that is no way the nature of the word?] perverse pen! I meant and said the word Superstition was well applied by Divines (not to super statutum, but) to those Additions to the Rule; and surely they may well be said, to be super statutum; above the command of God. But one thing more; [Can any proof be brought hence, to conclude Superstition to be an excess? because it is super statutum, when no affinity betwixt them? what is unreasonable if this be not?] Good words, I pray; what more reasonable than this argument: [Every Addition of worship to the Rule of worship, is an excess supra statutum; But Superstition, is an Addition to the Rule of worship; ergo, Superstition is an excess.] Supra statutum is the Judgement of Scripture, and the best Divines. That said I, which the Scriptures of the Old Testament call Additions, the New calls Superstition, Will-worship, etc.  
But I must not scape so: 
n. 9  [In those few words (named last) there are many infirm parts, 1. That additions to the word are in the New Testament called Doctrines.] He cuts of my words; I said, Doctrines, Traditions of men: and so they are Matth. 15.6.9. By your Tradition, opposed to the Commandment of God; and [In vain do they worship me teaching Doctrines the Commandments of men:] He flies to his old Muse, [Their teaching their own Traditions for Doctrines, is adding them, to the Scripture, etc.] But than is it not evident, 1. that their Doctrines and Traditions, were Additions to the word? 2. That these Doctrines concerned the worship of God, and so Additions to the Rule of worship, in vain do they worship me: and are not these Additons, excesses? what sense then is there in his new coined gloss? [Doctrines thore simply signifying, not that addition, but that to which the addition was made.] What means he? that Doctrines signifies the Scripture? for to that the Addition was made; so he says, [Adding them to the Scriptures] what? their own Traditions: Then their Doctrines were added to the Scripture; but were not Scripture, and if not Scripture, Additions to the Scripture. 2. But my next infirmity is, that I say, [Those Additions, are called Will-worship;] The contrary whereof, (he says) is proved in the Treatise of Will-worship: I shall not anticipate the place: All I say now is but this: If it be Will-worship, to devise new sorts of worship, and to offer them to God, for worship: (as the Doctor confesses it is, pag. 
See p. 10. n. 11. & p. 15. n. 24.  96. n. 6.) Then those Additions may well be called Will-worship; and such Will-worship may very well be called, an Addition to the Rule of worship. 3. This is yet another of my mistakes; [That additions to the rule of worship, are any where in the New Testament called Superstition: I desire he would show me one such place, for my concordance will not afford it me.] Let him not evade, by those words, [Called Superstition,] That is, in so many words, and I will show many places, where the thing is apparent; that Superstition is an Addition to the word, and Additions to the word, are Superstition. But in stead of all, I shall produce his own words, Sect. 46. of Superst. [To affirm God to command, when he doth not, is Superstition, under the notion of nimiety or excess, because that man adds to the commands of Christ:] Which place will shortly come to be considered.  
He says, [Those Athenians, Act. 17.22. sure, 
p. 23. n. 10.  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 every sin in the world, is Superstition.] This is a strange gloss. 1. Do not idolaters, Polytheists (such as these Athenians were) meddle with, and add to the rule of worship? surely than none in the world do: Is it not a moral Law written in the hearts of all men, (though blotted much) that God alone is to be worshipped? do not they that worship other Gods, with, or without him, meddle with, and add to this rule of worship? 2. Does it become the Doctor's Learning and Divinity, to make adulterers (and so every sinner in the second Table) to be (with them afore) stilled Superstitious? when worship (and so Superstition) is only in the first Table? let the Reader judge.  
Against my second proof exception is taken; 
p. 23. n. 12.  1. Because I use the same medium, as in the former proposition:] An heavy charge; as if the Doctor did not know, that one medium, may prove several propositions: The question is, whether it proves the present proposition or no: 2. Then he undertakes to put my argument into form: but that I refuse; and renounce his whole Syllogism, as none of mine; upon this ground, because he hath changed the question, from uncommanded worship, to uncommanded ceremonies? and than plays his feats: only I shall remind him, what he grants in his proposition; 1. [That worshipping of the Daemons, is an excess opposite to Religion:] ergo, [Superstition is an excess.] 2. So also is the worshipping the true God, after an undue and unlawful manner, (an excess.) ergo, Superstition is of larger extent, than the worshipping of Daemons: which both, the Doctor seems to deny. Now I shall put my argument into form; [If profaneness, the one extreme of Religion, he a defect of Religion; then Superstition, the other extreme, is an excess of Religion: but the first is true and cannot be denied; ergo, [If the Doctor did not intent to decline the force of this proof, and to make a diversion to his Reader; he would not have started a new Hare, that himself might escape.  
My next proof was from the Doctors own concessions; 
p. 24. n 13. See p. 227. etc. the numb. 13. twice.  where he first espies a Numeral fault, a figure of 4. twice: Whether this was mine, or the Printers fault, he hath no cause to complain; having 6. for 5. But that's a trivial excursion; yet ordinary enough. First the Doctor grants, Superstitiosus may denote such an excess: an excess of Religion: 
n. 16.  [What excess in Religion? the super statutum, every addition; 1. Every uncommanded circumstance, or ceremony in the worship of God? thus he must mean, if constant, etc.] No such matter; but every Addition of worship supra statutum, above the command of God. The question was of worship itself, from the beginning, not of Circumstances of worship: If Superstitious signify such an excess, will it any thing help the Doctor, to say, so did Religiosus sometime signify too? Yes, 1. [Superstitio and Religio, were (among Heathens) the 
* They were not the same, see ad p. 70 n. 1. But one a vice, the other a virtue.  same: and 2. All such excesses are not culpable, in their opinion.] If they once did signify excesses in Religion, and culpable; it matters not what their opinions after were; who were ill Judges of Superstition and Religion: And what ever Religiosus may signify, let the Doctor show us any Protestant Divine that ever took Superstitio, or Superstitiosus in a good sense. But what is the meaning of those words; 
n. 17.  [My pretensions in that place, were only this, that Superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess.] Does he mean, that Superstition never in any Authors, signifies a criminous excess? That he cannot say, or that all Authors do not take it for a criminous excess? (the words may bear both senses) that's too dilate for the Doctor to affirm; It's enough for us, if in some Authors, both Heathen and Divine, it signify a criminous excess: and if Superstitiosus so signify, so may Superstitio, from whence it comes. But he says, [when Superstitiosus is used in an ill sense, as when we say, a Superstitious person, it's clear, that Superstition there signifies Heathen worship; or worshipping of others beside the one true God, etc.] That's not true; for the worshipping of the true God, in an undue and unlawful manner, is by the School-man, and by most Divines, yea, the Doctor himself, p. 24. n. 12. called Superstition. And many other kinds of Superstition the Doctor hath acknowledged, (as appears in these concessions we are now upon) which cannot signify Heathen worship, that is, worshipping of others beside the one true God: as we shall show in those concessions that follow. It's true indeed, that he that is Superstitions, [acts like one of those false worshippers, and agrees with them in some eminent branch of their false worship.] As Papists worshipping Angels, Images, Bread, etc. act like Heathens: but they are Superstitious in many other things, that Heathens were never guilty of; this therefore was but an evasion, to take away the suspicion of Superstition from himself and his party, by laying it upon others.  
Secondly, Angel-worship is an excess, and by the Doctor called that crime of Superstition. But (says he) [is this an excess of Religion, or not rather impiety?] Might not a man wonder at this question? It is both excess of Religion, and also an Impiety: It's therefore Impiety because it exceeds the Rule of worship: 
p. 25. n. 18.  ['Tis true, (says he) this is an addition to the object of worship;] But is not an Addition to the object of worship, an Addition to the Rule of worship; [God alone is to be worshipped?] Yes, (says he again) [As death is an addition to life, i.e. destruction to the oneness of that, and as adultery is an addition to marital love and fidelity.] What, just so, and no otherwise? Surely death is the deprivation of, not an Addition to life: but worshipping others with the true God, is not destructive of worship, but only adds false-worship to it, and that's another manner of Addition, then of death to life: It corrupts true worship, but does not destroy worship: But then, (the old Jealousy again,) [What's this to the prejudice of uncommanded Ceremonies,] (Circumstances he should say.) Nothing at all; for he knows the controversy is about uncommanded worship: The like answer is made to the next alleged concession. [The worshipping Daemons by Heathens, and of Saints by Papists, is called Superstition] by the Doctor: But (says he) [The using of an uncommanded Rite, is none of these.] That's not the question; 
n. 19  I asked, why these are called Superstition, but because they add to the to the Rule of worship? He likes not my reason: [It was visible enough in the naming of Superstitum cultus; and the worshipping of them is Superstition.] Nor do I like his no-reason, it answers not my question: why is the worshipping of Daemons Superstition? The answer he makes, is idem per idem. The worshipping of Daemons, is Superstition, because it is the worshipping of Daemons: why is that unlawful? because it is forbidden: By what Law? the first Commandment, which Commands God alone to be the object of worship: Then worshipping of others with, or beside God, is an Addition to the object, and so to the Rule of worship: [Why so doth sacrilege, add to the rule of worship (even when it robs God) in this sense, doing something which the rule commands not, no nor permits, and yet that is not Superstition.] This is his Capriccio, a mere prevarication; For 1. Sacrilege some refer to the eighth Commandment, which sure is no Rule of worship. 2. If it fall in the first Table, it is rather to be called profaneness, than Superstition; not Adding, but taking away from the worship of God: 3. It does something which the Rule commands not, nor does permit: but so does adultery (one of his instances) against the seventh Commandment; but that's no Rule of Worship: But we speak of worship, and doing worship, which the Rule commands not; therefore worshipping of Daemons may well be called Superstition, for this Reason, for one, because it adds to the Rule of worship: Though uncommanded Rites, (if not made parts of worship) are not called Superstition, for this reason, because they are not Additions to the Rule of worship. There is a double fallacy in his words: some thing, for some worship; and the Rule commands not, for the Rule of worship. Dolosus versatur in universalibus.  
In the next we are like to be longer: 
p. 26. n. 20.  [Slavish fear is granted to be Superstition; because it is an excess of that fear, which is a part of worship in the first Commandment,] For which (I confess my mistake by haste) I referred to Sect. 24, 25. which should have been Sect. 13. There the Doctor speaking of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says, [It may sometimes perhaps be set to import a cowardly trembling fear; 
Will the Doctor be so bold, to defend such a fear as good?  the Superstitious man is Religious and cowardly, fears the Gods and is afraid of them. The Pious man comes to God, without fear; the Superstitious with much fear, dreading the Gods as so many Tyrants. The Religious man reveres God, the Superstitious is afraid of him; and consequently to that, Religion is the worshipping of God, 
See p. 58. n. 3.  Superstition the wronging of him: the Superstitious wishes there were no Gods; as the Atheist thinks there is none.] All which, I thought, were a full description of Slavish fear, the common Attendant on Superstition: Upon that mistake of mine, the Doctor takes advantage, and plays upon me; 
See p. 57 p.  [Who would have expected the Diatribist, a favourer of the Sect of Epicurus, as he must be, if this fear of God, which Epicurus called Superstition, be by him looked upon, as an excess of that worship of the first Commandment, etc.] Who would have expected the Doctor should be thus rash to suppose or censure me, to be a favourer of that wicked Sect? when he hears me profess, Superst. s. 21. What Epicurus Doctrine was, or what Heathens though of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are not much solicitous.] I looked not then at that fear of God, which Epicurus would have cast out of the world; but that fear of the Superstitious, which the Doctor hath described from several Authors, that I called Slavish Fear: and an excess of that Fear, commanded in the first Commandment. This the Doctor calls, [the Ordinary Divinity concerning slavish fear,] 
p. 28. n. 22  and thereupon takes occasion to read us a Divinity Lecture, concerning Slavish fear: But first he must (without me) state the question, [And suppose, that by it, I understand fear of punishment, as by filial fear, a reverential obedience, proceeding wholly from love, without any thing of fear in it.] He hath at first going out, forsaken the question, which is not, of fear of punishment in general (which is necessary) but of slavish fear of punishment, opposed to filial fear of punishment: (which, [that it proceeds wholly from love, without any fear in it,] is another question, and seems little less than a contradiction, without a distinction.) I said, filial fear of punishment; and he demands, first, [whether sons may not lawfully and reasonably fear punishments from their Parents, in case they shall deserve it.] I answer, yes, with a filial, not a slavish fear; these are distinct kinds of fears: But (what ever a child of a man may do) for a true child of God his Father, to fear him as a Tyrant, with fear of exheredation and casting out of the family, etc. is a slavish fear, not becoming either that Father, or this Son: Again, 
p. 29. n. ●4.  he must suppose (before he infer) [the slavish fear in my notion to be such as is in a wicked man; and than it must be either the fear of Divine vengeance of a sin formerly committed, or at the time of committing, or before be commit it.] I shall yield him more than he demands, the slavish fear, in my notion, may be, not only in a wicked man, but in a Godly man too, in a desertion, etc. And both are known by this, that they drive a man from God. It is hope of mercy that brings men to God; [There is mercy with thee, that thou mayest be feared] as well as loved. Well, if slavish fear be in a wicked man; it respects either a sin committed, or at the time, etc. Hereupon he demands [how any of these three fears, can by a Christian, duly he called an excess, or with any propriety, Superstition?] But does he not here vary the question? which is of slavish fear, not of filial: All these three fears (which are indeed but one, with a threefold object) may be in a godly man, as well as a wicked, yea must; Fear of God being a duty of the first Commandment, and natural worship: but it is the excess thereof that denominates it slavish: ergo, Adam before his Fall, was bound to fear to offend God, by sin in this he could not exceed; He was bound to fear vengeance from God after he had sinned: but moderated, not so, as to account God a Tyrant, to fly from God, as he did, etc. This sure was excess of fear, and slavish: And this may answer all his demands, before, at, and after sin committed; he must fear, but still with a filial, not a slavish fear; There is a middle between slavish fear, and no fear of God; one is too much, the other too little; between which, as the virtue, stands filial fear, which is tempered with love of God. 
n. 26. p. 30.  But says he; [Love of God, or virtue, is not in a wicked man, as wicked; he is supposed to have none of that in his heart.] It's true; but that's his sin, and so is his slavish fear, which nothing but grace will drive out. 
n. 27.  This may perhaps give the Doctor reason to change his mind concerning slavish fear, and no longer to deny it to be an excess of Religion, or not capable of the title of Superstition: They are his own words, a little inverted. But hear more.  
[The truth is (says he) what is a miss in such fear, 
n. 28.  is a defect not an excess; a want of love, not an excess of fear.] And I pray, why not both? love and fear are two distinct affections; and both may exceed, or come short. And if slavish fear be a defect, what differs it from Security or no fear? True it is; want of love, is one cause of slavish fear: & that want is a defect of love; but yet slavish fear is an excess; what's short in one, is made out in the other. Now love of God, being wanting in wicked men, it must needs be that they exceed, or come short in their fear of God, yea being enemies to God, they are 
* Rom 1.30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plutarch de Superst.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God-haters, and whom men hate; if too strong for them, they deadly fear them: if too weak, they despise them: it's true also, [That God is made up of goodness, as well as Justice, and the Gospel compounded of promises as well as threats, etc.] But if a wicked (or a godly) man separate these (as usually he does) looking at the Goodness and promises only, makes him fearless and secure; that's the defect: At the Justice and threats only, fills with despair, and that breeds an excess of fear. Only filial fear, compounds those things in God and the Gospel; the one breeds love, the other fear; yea, a Godly man fears God for his Goodness, Hos. 3.5 as well as, if not more then, for his Justice. And now it may appear, that [slavish fear is fitly brought as an Instance, of excess of Religion, and so of Superstition]  
We come now to the fourth or rather fifth concession of the Doctor; 
p. 30. n. 30.  [To affirm God to command when he doth not, is granted to be Superstition, under the notion of excess, because that man adds to the commands of Christ] This is plain, both that Superstition is an excess, and that excess, in adding to the commands of God is Superstition: what can he say to it. He cannot deny, but he can excuse it; [He did grant this for to gratify them, 
Did not Aquinas take it in that sense?  who will needs have Superstition taken in the sense of nimiety, and so opposed to Religion, as an extreme to the mediocrity, and as an excess of fear, afraid of God when we need not, etc.] Belike he did not intent to gratify the truth; though truth forced him to this concession, more than to pleasure any adversary. Speak out: Is this Adding to the commands of Christ, an excess or no? Is this excess, Superstition or no? Is the imposing Commandments on God and obligations on ourselves, and others, which he never gave, an excess of fear, a being afraid of God, or no? If all these be affirmed; the main question now between as is granted; If denied, all this concession is but a prevarication; to raise a dust, to obscure the business, [An excess of fear, a being afraid of God, when we need not, is proportionable to one notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, arising from the consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may signify perhaps, a trembling, and so a cowardly fear in that composition.] How warily, how tremblingly spoken; [proportionable to one notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] He might have said, [to the first and chiefest notion of that word,] which signifies primarily, not the worship, but the fear of Daemons. Then, [may signify, perhaps, a trembling fear.] It does signify that, and the Doctor hath granted the sense, and the thing, in those that are Superstitious, (above, ad pag. 26. n. 20.) from the Authority of Heathens, who (he says) best knew the sense of the word, and the nature of Superstitious persons; [A trembling and so a cowardly fear] of God. And is not a cowardly fear of God, a slavish fear, an excess in the fear of God, an excess in Religion, and justly called Superstition? But he qualifies his concession; [As yielding the Dogmatizer, to be a Superstitious person] We must be content with what he will give, (for he is not very liberal,) but shall make this advantage of it, that Superstitum cultus, the worshipping of Daemons, is neither the only, nor the chief sense of Superstitio, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the dogmatizer is yielded a Superstitious person; and a cowardly fear of God, is granted an excess, and Superstition: which is so far from worshipping of God, that it hates and flies from him, as a cruel Tyrant: But if this be granted, and much more, n. 14. viz. Six senses, 
p. 31. n. 30.  wherein the Doctor hath yielded, [That excess in Religion may well be called Superstition.] Why might not this have saved me so much pains, [of affixing the contrary position upon him, that excess in Religion, is not well called Superstition?] Truly this may seem a ground of wonder, and how to reconcile the Doctor with himself I know not. For that he denies, [excess in Religion, to be called, or be Superstition;] (yea, that there can be any excess in Religion, he denies) is evident afore, ad p. 20. n. 2. And yet, forgetting himself, confesses by several assertions; that [Excess in Religion (mark that) may well be called Superstition.] I leave him to agree with himself, and proceed to the old exception: 
n. 31.  [Mean while (says he) the Doctor's Hypothesis is still secure, this no ways belongs to the using or prescribing Ceremonies in the worship of God, etc.] I never said it did, but only, to prescribing or using uncommanded worship. But if the Doctor make his Circumstances, or Ceremonies, parts of worship, (as it will appear he does;) it will touch his copyhold, and prove excess in Religion, and no better than Superstition.  
The last concession of the Doctor is now to be considered: [To place more virtue in things, 
n. 32.  than God or nature hath put in them; is an excess, because it adds to the promises of Christ, and called Superstition. Sect. 45.] He fairly yields the cause; [This is another particular, which I allow to be an excess, and fit to be comprehended under the stile of Superstition.] Quod erat demonstrandum, which was the thing I undertook to prove: Only we must gratify him again, that we do not charge him, [With yielding, that the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church, are in the least degree guilty of Superstition,] provided, he do not make them parts of worship, more holy, etc. but mere Circumstances thereof. And thus much of this second ground of his mistake.  
The third is, 
p. 32. n. 3.  [That Will worship is nothing but voluntary worship, as innocent, as the Free-will-offerings, etc.] To the former part of which he says, [Is there any, the nicest difference imaginable, betwixt Will-worship, and Voluntary-worship, etc.] Dolosus versatur in universalibus: and hates distinctions, as a thief does the light. Doth not, may not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify either Willing-worship, or Will-devised-worship? and is there no difference between them two? Is here not the same distinction to be made of cultus voluntarius, voluntary worship? And do not most Divines take Will-worship, and Voluntary-worship, in an ill sense, for Will-devised worship? as I show below, and call it Superstitio, in that one text where it is used? which hath respect to uncommanded worship, the same with Will-devised worship? Doth then this tergiversation become a learned ingenuous Adversary? But to the second part, [as innocent as Free-will-offerings, &c] He says (with the same evasion,) [ offerings were certainly one species of Voluntary-worwip, therefore those being innocent, so must this.] But I pray say; were the Free-will-offerings, Will-devised worship? In that sense of voluntary, that they were freely and willingly offered, (the kinds of that worship, being prescribed by God) we can grant them voluntary: but that is not the controverted sense; nor does the Doctor own that sense of the word; but takes it for offerings, or oblations not commanded by God, but tendered to him, by the will of man: as hath been showed, and shall be showed hereafter. Will the Doctor allow these oblations, (this worship) to be as innocent as the Free-will-offerings? He must, or he says nothing to the question: yea, he does maintain this paradox: as we shall hear.  
And that I understood Will-worship in that sense, and voluntary, for uncommanded worship, 
p. 33. n. 6.  he may see, by my first Argument: which was this, [It seems a contradiction, in adjecto, that voluntary and uncommanded worship should be innocent; for, first, it is expressly against the second Commandment, etc.] His answer is, [That may seem a contradiction to Mr. C. which doth not to other men. Is it what it seems, or is it not?] It was my modesty to say, it seems, (yet sometimes seeming is put for really so) when I might have said, it is so; upon this supposition, (which I shall prove by and by) that uncommanded worship is forbidden in the second Commandment. For thus the Argument would be form: [If uncommanded, Will-devised-worship be forbidden in the second Commandment, it is a contradiction, in adjecto, to say, it is innocent: But the first is true: ergo,] To say then, it is forbidden, and not forbidden, is a contradiction; but to say it is forbidden, and yet innocent, is to say it is forbidden, and not forbidden: ergo, The Doctor does but obscure the matter, by his Logical notions of contradiction, and I list not to follow him. But consider what he says to the purpose. [In this proposition, (voluntary, 
n. 7.  or uncommanded worship is innocent) there is no contradiction, etc.] True, first, if he take voluntary, for Willing-worship, of willing performance of prescribed worship, that's innocent enough; and no contradiction. But, secondly, take voluntary, for uncommanded worship, and that's not innocent. I say uncommanded worship, (not uncommanded Circumstances) to be innocent, is a contradiction: because uncommanded worship, is by all men, even the Doctor himself acknowledged to be forbidden; and so unlawful, or not innocent. Hic aqua haerebit. For he presently adds, [Of forbidden worship this were true; for innocency to be attributed to that, were a contradiction, in adjecto, etc.] But say I, says he elsewhere, all uncommanded worship is forbidden: ergo, The difference between forbidden and voluntary, that is, not Commanded-worship, is none at all, by his own concession; & if he take Voluntary-worship in any other sense, he forsakes both the question itself, & his own sense of it, formerly given: Hence that proposition of his, [All being lawful which is not forbidden] is a blind; It's true only of things, in the second Table, but not of worship, in the first: for there, [All worship is unlawful that is not commanded; 
He blames the practice of Casuists in reducing all sins to some of the ten Commandments of the Decalogue: here.  and all not commanded is forbidden.] And his reason added to that proposition, [Else there were no universal truth in that Maxim; that sin is the transgression of the Law] will twice rebound upon himself; 1. That he himself hath shaken the universal truth of that Maxim, in this very Section, pag. 35. n. 11. [I leave it to prudent consideration, what necessity there is, that all Laws natural, and positive Divine, should be reduced to one or more of the ten Commandments.] If no necessity of this, certainly there may be some sins which are no transgressions of the Law, of the Decalogue; for of that the Apostle spoke: but of that by and by. 2. The next concernment is his: He says, uncommanded worship is forbidden, and so a transgression of some Law; by what Law of the Decalogue is the question: which will come presently into consideration. 
p. 34. n. 8.   
But as for those say of some of the Ancients, [That some men do exceed commands.] It unseasonably comes in here; and we shall meet with it hereafter: All I say at present is this, 1. That they must be understood, to mean it of particular, not the general command, of loving God, with all the heart, and strength; or 2. Of commands of the second Table, not commands of the first; or 3. Of some Circumstances of worship, not worship itself, worship not commanded; for then the Doctor himself would oppose them, as Adders of New worship. And therefore this Instance, is far from conviction of what he was to prove.  
My first proof of his contradiction, in adjecto, 
n. 10.  was this; [It's expressly against the 2. Commandment, which forbids all worship not expressly commanded by God.] I must (to use the Doctor's words here) not complain of my eyes, because they are the best that God hath given me; but I am sure the second repetition of (expressly) is not to be seen in my words: But let him put it in, if it may give him any advantage; For I think he will not deny the latter part, [that God forbids all worship not expressly commanded by himself.] It is the former that he quarrels, [That uncommanded worship is expressly forbidden in the second Commandment.] The word expressly was added, with respect to the Judgement of our most and best reformed Divines, who understand the second Commandment in the Affirmative part, thus; [God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship;] the Negative whereof is, [Alderman unprescribed, uncommanded worship is forbidden:] Little did I dream of the Doctor's Gloss of the second Commandment, which is purely his own; for aught I ever read or heard: (of which by and by) For he says, [What is expressly against the second Commandment, should oppose some express words in it.] If it oppose the express, or truly expressed sense of it, methinks it should be sufficient. Let's try that: his words are these; [My Optic glass will not afford me any such prospect in the second Commandment.] What prospect does it afford him? [All sorts of graven Images, and such like; but for all kinds and Circumstances of worship, nothing.] First, kinds and Circumstances of worship, are ill coupled together; for Circumstances are not where forbidden in any Commandment; but kinds are surely forbidden in some Commandment. 2. When he says, [All sort of Images and such like,] He might have seen all kinds of worship, like unto Images, the imaginations of men, there forbidden; had his Optic glass been made of the same Crystal, that other Divines are. And I wonder how at first view, he espied (such like) there, when as at his second review, 
See p. 43. n. 4. Append. on 2. Commandment  he saw [no more but a prohibition of Idolworship,] p. 44. n. 8. Yet in a former view saw clearly this truth; [That God must be worshipped, in a manner peculiar to him, and appointed by him.] And yet more, [The very use of any other thing in the service of God, which is by others worshipped, and by which we are in any eminent danger to be corrupted, (as we are by any new devised worship) is to be conceived to be forbidden to all Christians, by the force of that (second) Commandment.] And yet hear how he concludes this Number; [As for any general comprehensive phrase that can rationally contain a prohibition of all (worship, Sir) 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 second Commandment.] What a vast difference there is between an eye calm and clear, and the same eye overdrawn with a cataract of prejudice. What other men see in the second Commandment, we shall hear anon. We now go on:  
The Doctor hath spied, by his Optic glass, something more, than other men do or can see, the cause of my mistake in this matter: [It is, 
p. 35. n. 11.  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, etc.] Truly, I must profess, that I have believed, since I knew the Commandments, and what sin is, that all sins are reducible to some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue. Sin (says Saint John) is the transgression of the Law: which the Doctor calls an universal Maxim above; and if it be not some way a transgression of that law, it is no sin. So here's another contradiction, in adjecto, to say, a thing is a sin, and no transgression of the Law. Herein the Doctor is singular again; and runs gross to all Divines, that I know of; but not without a show of reason; [For separate gluttony and drunkenness (as they may, and yet be sins) from some accidental consequences of them— and you will hardly tell, whether to reduce the Intemperate use of the Creature.] This is pretry untempered mortar; for, first, those sins of gluttony and drunkenness, cannot be separated from some accidental ill consequences or other (wasting of health is but one of them.) Yet he says they may. 2. It is an old Rule, in interpreting the Commandments; [That where any sin is forbidden, all the causes, effects, degrees, etc. are forbidden with it.] But the Doctor regards no such old Rules. 3. Though it be hard, to which Commandment, directly to reduce some sins, yet it's possible; and easy [upon the former Rule] to reduce some sins to many Commandments. As: ergo, drunkenness and gluttony; as they are means to self-murder, and murder of others sometimes, are reducible to the sixth Commandment. As Incentives of lust, to the seventh. As wasters of a man's estate, to the eighth. And some say, The Intemperate use of the Creatures, is reducible to the third Commandment, a taking of God's Name in vain, which is much manifested by every creature. But I believe the Doctor will laugh at such old Divinity; and were it not for the ill consequences thereof, would easily make them no sins, excluding them out of the Decalogue; which would be a brave doctrine to gratify the Ranters. If the Doctor cannot (or but hardly) tell, to what Commandment of the Decalogue to reduce those Intemperances', they will easily believe and plead they are no sins. But the Doctor shall be no Catechist, no Casuist, or Confessor of mine, that holds any thing a sin, not forbidden by the Law; and so is unable to resolve me, against which Commandment, the Intemperate use of the Creature offends. I have heard some, of no mean pretence to Piety, excuse some of their party, that have been drunk; [They have but taken a little too much of the Creature.] I wonder not, the Doctor is so  to the Riotous part of his Festival; when thus he glosses of sins, and Commandments. But he gives another instance; [That sort of lying, or false speaking, which is no way hurtful, or no way intended to be hurtful to the neighbour.] He means the jesting lie; to which he might have added, the officious lie, which is helpful to the neighbour, without hurting any man. If no body be hurt by these, the truth itself is hurt; and that will be hurtful to the speaker, what ever it be to the neighbour. There are many more of these instances, belike, and by Papists are called but Venial sins: with whom how near he complies in these cases, let him consider.  
Here again, 
p. 36. n. 12.  the Doctor speaks of the unlawfulness of Ceremonies, and uncommanded worship together; as if they were both equally, by us, judged unlawful: But in stead of rectifying a mistake, he makes one: [He hath not considered this one thing, that whatsoever is not forbidden, is lawful: not, whatsoever is not commanded is unlawful.] These words, if referred to Circumstances, are both ways true; but referred to worship, both ways false: whatsoever Circumstance of worship is not forbidden is lawful: but whatsoever worship is not commanded, is unlawful; as was said above; ad p. 33. n. 7. And then uncommanded worship, if it be a sin and unlawful, being forbidden by some Commandment, and all the other nine renouncing it, it must (but without crowding) be reduced to the second Commandment, or to none. My answer therefore is ready to his questions; 1. That many, 
n. 13.  yea most of our Divines, have said as fully, as I have done, that voluntary uncommanded worship, is expressly against the second Commandment; meaning against the sense of that Commandment. 2. They that have referred it thither have given as cogent reasons for it, as the Doctor himself hath done, when he glossed the sense of the second Commandment, to be this, [That God must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him, and appointed by him.] Whence it may be argued and concluded that worship not appointed, that is, not commanded by him, is forbidden, by the second Commandment.  
In his answer to my second proof, he is very brief and very obscure, and deceives us, by a general, 
n. 14. p. 37.  [That all Additions to the Rule of worship are not Superstition.] But I say all uncommanded worship, is an Addition to the Rule of worship, and so Superstition, and sinful. He is as short to the third; 
n. 15.  [Worship of Angels, is forbidden by a positive command, and so must needs be sinful; but the doing of what is not commanded, is not a sin.] This last is a mere delusion; for if he speak of Circumstances (or Ceremonies as he calls them) the doing of them is not a sin; but if he speak of worship, the doing of what is not commanded, is a sin as himself hath often confessed: And when I added, in the close of the third proof, [That they that worship Angels, 
p. 37. n. 16.  do not urge it as a Commandment of God,] I intended it as a prevention to his objection, or assertion, [That the Dogmatizers did pretend a Commandment of God, and that indeed was Superstition; and allowed scarce any other possible to a Protestant.] He answers, [He never doubted but there were other sins, beside Dogmatizing, etc.] But he should have said, [Other kinds of Superstition, beside that of Dogmatizing:] As he says, [The murderer is a sinner, though he teach it for a Doctrine, that it is lawful to kill his brother:] So, he is Superstitious, that places more virtue in things, than God or nature hath put in them; And he is Superstitious, that adds new worship to the Rule of worship, though neither of than be Dogmatizers, to teach it for Doctrine, or a Commandment of God, etc. And [though he oblige not, as from God, any other man to do the like:] As he speaks, because he goes against express precept, [Thou shalt not add to the word,] or Rule of worship.  
Lastly, I said, if Will-worship be innocent, Rome is justified in her rabble of Superstitious worship, 
n. 17.  etc. He answers to this effect; If it be true, that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious; he undertook not to justify Rome, or any other Churches in their worship, etc. But the Church of England, etc.] This is like the rest, a mere diversion: for the question is, whether Will-worship, of any Church, Rome or England, be justifiable; and he says, if it be true that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious, (doubtingly) he undertook not to justify it: and yet justifies Will-worship to be as innocent as the Free-will-offerings, without any distinction. And this may serve for the third discovery of causes of his mistakes.  
The last, was, [That he takes for granted, 
p. 38. n. 1.  that a Church, or person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded of God.] For which he offers this probation: 
n. 3.  [Whatsoever is in itself perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God, that a Church, or particular person hath power to institute and observe: But so is the Christmas Festival: ergo,] I answer first to the proposition; it offends in leaving out the chief term in the question, viz. Worship; and should run thus, whatsoever worship is sure or lawful, etc. And then, that it begs the very question, that a Church hath power to Institute worship: (which is denied by me and the Doctor himself,) Then to the Assumption, it should thus be propounded: But Christmas Festival is a worship, free and lawful: But this again is acknowledged by the Doctor to be false, who denies to make it, a new worship; but a Circumstance of worship. Is not this a probation unbeseeming the Doctor's learning? 
n. 4.  which his three considerations will no way support. For, first, the Church hath no power to Institute, nor the Christian to Observe any worship, not commanded of God. 2. The Christian may freely do, what is prescribed by the Church, in matter of Circumstance, but not in matter of Worship. 3. He confounds the universal Church, in aftertimes, with the Apostles, as if their power were one and same; in Instituting worship; whereas the Apostles power was Divine; the Churches succeeding, but Humane. The Church then, [May dispose, order, Institute Circumstances of worship to her members, etc.] But may not meddle, to Institute any worship not commanded by God, which is prohibited, 
p. 39 n. 5.  because not commanded. His proof of the Minor is voided, by what hath been said, that it is no part of worship; or if so made, is perfectly false; the prohibition of God lying flat against all Additions of worship, to the Rule, that is all uncommanded worship. And that was my Argument against it, [Because all Additions to the word, in matter of worship, be criminous and sinful, and prohibited by Deut. 4.2. and elsewhere.] Dare or can the Doctor deny this, in matter of worship, I say, not of Circumstances of worship? Something he must and will say; 
n. 6.  [The whole matter is devolved on this issue; whether the text, Deut. 4 2. and the second Commandment, (and others not cited) be sufficient to prejudge the using or instituting any Ceremony, or Festival, not commanded by God.] Which is a perverse varying of the question (I fear against his own Conscience) which was professed by me, (and confessed so by him to be my mind) to be of uncommanded Worship, and not of Circumstances thereof. And now let him consider, what good this Suppletory of his hath done, unless it be to confirm the Reader (as well as myself) that I have hit upon some of the true causes of his Mistakes; it may be, the Discourses following, will discover some more, at least, Miscarriages, 
n. 7.  which may need his further vindication. My Account thus far stands right upon the Audit; and I doubt not will do so in the remaining parts, when they be rightly cast up. I am now in doubt and deliberation, whether I shall need to proceed any further at present, with the Tracts themselves, till he hath supplied a new, the Defects of this his Suppletory; especially considering that much of what is here said, is again and again repeated there. Till then, I might well forbear to go on with his Large Discourse: He hath had above a year to answer my little Pamphlet (as no doubt he esteems it) and I hope he will grant me two or three years, to answer his volume.    

Exercitation. 1. Of Superstition.  

Section, 1. In a just and methodical order of Tractation, the Discourse of Superstition should precede that of Will-worship, that being more general, this last a Special under it, etc.  
FOr the order or method, whether of those two should have the precedence, the Doctor is not very solicitous to dispute, 
p. 41. n. 1.  [Though it be certain, (says he) that I am not of his mind, that Will-worship, is a species of Superstition, yet I shall not engage in a dispute thereof, etc.] It is hard, that the Doctor and I cannot be of one mind, almost in any thing; whether it be, because one of us are oft out of the way of truth; or that one of us, loves to have his hand against every man, that differs from him in opinion; let others judge, and which of the two, it is. Sure I am, the Doctor hath engaged sometimes, in a dispute, in a lesser matter than this is, in opposition (as one would think) to his adversary, not of his own judgement. I shall not debate it with him, but only show my judgement, and the reason of it, to clear what I first asserted. True it is, that Divines, and Interpreters, do render both the Greek words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by this one word Superstitie; Because (as I take it) they thought, Will-worship to be Superstition: But whether they thought all Superstition to be Will-worship, is a question; which is some do, the reconciliation may perhaps be thus made by a distinction. The whole first Table of the Decalogue, being granted by all, to be the only Rule of worship, (as contradistinct to Justice or Charity in the second Table) any way of worshipping God, or any Circumstance, made a part of worship by men, may be called Will-worship, as well as Superstition; and in that larger sense, are both one. But if we speak distinctly of the matter of instituted Worship, as distinct from the Object, Manner, Time; then Will-worship, that is, worship devised and added by the will of man, in regard of the Materials of it, may, more strictly taken, be a species of Superstition; because Superstition may be found in those other Circumstances named which is not in that strict sense, called Will-worship: But I shall not be bound to persuade the Doctor to be of my mind, let him enjoy his own thoughts.  
That which he replies to, 
n. 2.  is the latter part of this Section, about the Inquiry, what Superstition is; not so much, by searching into the Monuments of Heathen Authors, (which is the Doctor's way) as by the Judgement of Divines, etc. He says, [There is no better way to understand the full importance of words, then to examine them in their origination, and usage among the best Authors, Profane and Sacred, the Scripture, in Lactantius, and Saint Austin, etc. As competent Judges of Superstition, as his latter Divines, that have reduced the use of all Ceremonies not commanded by God to the second Commandment, etc. Under the Title of Superstition.] Here are not many words but many miscarriages. 1. To begin at the last, and common mistake; that he charges our later Divines, to reduce all use of Ceremonies (Circumstances he should say) not commanded by God, to the second Commandment, as Superstitious: which they intended only of uncommanded worship; not of Ceremonies, unless they be made parts of worship. 2. For the Origination of words, and usage amongst Heathen Authors; he knows, that usage, is often changed in succeeding generations; That which once was a good word, is degenerated, to signify some thing ill, or clean another thing: as Latro, Tyrannus, Nebulo, with many others. And he that would now take those words in the first good sense (yet hath he Authors Ancient enough (for it) would make himself ridiculous. Suppose then, Superstitio, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did primarily signify Religion, yet in after ages they came to signify something ill: or rather, if they did first signify something ill, and afterwards had the hap among Heathens to get a good sense sometimes; which soever of these be true, there is no following the first Origination or usage of words; but to have respect to the several Ages, who are Masters of words. Yet if we may believe Cicero, 
De Nat. Deorum.  the eloquent Orator, and a well-skiled man in all Antiquities, in his time he tells us, (as I touched before) that they were first called Superstitiosi, who, totos dies precabantur & immolabant, ut liberi sibi Superstites essent, prayed whole days, and offered sacrifice, that their children might survive, and outlive them: and then adds, Ita factum est, etc. [So it came to pass, that the word Superstitious, was a name of a vice; and Religious, of a virtue.] Whence it is observable from him; first, That Superstition was the name of a vice, in its first Origination. 2. That the true Etymology of it, is not from Superstitum cultus, but, Superstites esse. 3. That the notion of Superstition, Postea pateit latius, was further enlarged; for so he says; that is, to signify more, that Superstites esse, viz. Superstitum cultus, and other things beside: and 4. That Superstitiosus and Religiosus differed very much, the one a vice, the other a virtue, which we shall have occasion to make use of again hereafter. But, thirdly, for the sense of those words, in Sacred Scripture, (no Heathen Author, as he floutingly speaks) they are now under debate, and must be Interpreted by other Scriptures; 4. For Lactantius, and S. Austin, though both of them, do refuse Cicero's Etymology of Religio and Religiosus, à relegendo; fetching it rather à religando; and of Superstitio, from Superstites esse; yet Ludovicus vives, a Learned Critic labours to reconcile them and Cicero, in the latter: For upon S. Austin, lib. 4. ad Marcellinum, c. 30. he hath these words, [Cicero does not only say, that they were Superstitious, who prayed so for their children, for he adds, that Name was afterwards enlarged, that is, accommodated to many other things:] Cicero speaking of it in the first Origination of it, and Lactantius in a second usage; denominating them Superstitious, qui falsam religionem colerent, Superstitemque defunctorum memoriam: who did set up a false Religion, and Celebrated the memory of the deceased; so he: Yea, Lactantius himself so speaks, 
l. 4. c. 28.  Qui novos sibi ritus assumebant ut in Deorum vicem, mortuos honorarent, hos superstiosos vocabant. Nimirum Religio, veri cultus, Superstitio falsi: Where he enlarges Superstition to all False-worship; as well as Superstitum cultus. But of the difference between Religious, and Superstitious, we shall have occasion to speak again.   

Section, 2. Superstition in the general notion of it, is not unfitly defined by the learned School-man, A vice contrary to Religion in the excess, etc.  
HE gins here with a mistake, [That I took Aquinas his definition out of Doctor Ames;] (who hath it not at all) which I took out of Aquinas himself, 
p. 42. n. 1.  setting the place in the Margin, where I had it: and after explained it, partly by the words of Amesius, and partly out of Aquinas himself, because it may seem a paradox, that a man can be too Religious. Why the Doctor should thus impose upon me, I know not, except it were to make his Reader believe, that I took up my Divinity, or trust, from some modern Casuist, having never read Aquinas, myself. But let that go with the rest of his secret flouts. But we are beholden to him, that he agrees with Aquinas (not in his definition of Superstition, to be an excess in Religion, for that he hath disputed against, and refused to say any thing to it, when it was objected to him, in my Preface; but) in [making the Worship of all but God, and the Worship of God, in any forbidden, or abolished manner to be species of Superstition.] First I would demand, why he added, the word (abolished.) If that be the same with forbidden, it was a needless addition; if it differ from it, than there is another species of Superstition, viz. To revive Abolished-worship: which yet is contrary to another notion of the 
* Willwor. s. 3. p. 19 n. 32. Rites of the old Law are not only not commanded, but forbidden under Christ.  Doctor; [when these abstinences (touch not, taste not, etc.) are imposed and taught as Divine obliging precepts, this is an abuse of them, (which were otherwise innocent things, etc.] Yet now says, he makes the Worship of God, [in any abolished manner, to be a species of Superstition.] By those words out of Aquinas, prout non debet, in that manner which he ought not; I understood not, uncommanded Circumstances, but Worship, as I have often said. Nor did Aquinas, or Amesius own any such sense of those words; but meant it, the one of Illegitimeworwip, (that's the title of that Question in Aquinas,) the other of Vndue-worship, those are Doctor Ames his words. Yet the Doctor taking that to be our sense, flies out in this manner; [If Amesius have owned that sense, than he was one of the Gasuists, which I forementioned, as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribist, and if Ursine, Doctor Fulk, Master Perkins are rightly cited, in his margin, etc. then we have perhaps, the full catalogue of them, and the Diatribist is now of age to consider, whether they have proved, or only dictated in this matter.] Upon a mere mistake, for they all four, (no Contemptible Authors) with many more, mean the same with Aquinas, Worship not commanded, but Added by the will of man.  
My distribution of the Subject of the four first Commandments, into, 1. the Object, 2. the Matter, 3. the Manner, 4. the Time of Worship: he says, 
p. 43. n, 2.  [They are no way qualified for such a structure, to conclude all excess in any of these, to be Superstition, there being scarce any one minute part of sound Doctrine in all this.] I am sorry to see the Doctor so poor a Catechist, as no better to understand the difference of those four Commandments. Not any one minute part of sound Doctrine in all this? Then sure most of our reformed Divines are very unsound, who make the same distinction, in sense, that I do, as I could easily prove, and shall make appear in all the particulars; when we hear what he says to them.  
[In the first, 
n. 3.  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, etc.] There is then this minute part of sound Doctrine, in my words; that the right object of worship, though it be not the principal, yet it is some part of that first Commandment: Yea, this is the principal matter, or object of the Commandment, in the express words; God alone, is to be worshipped; without any rivals to, or in that worship: For the Commandhath two parts, a Negative, no other Gods; an Affirmative, but Me, or before My face; and both concern the object of our worship; and not one word of the worship itself: but that follows by way of Consequence, If we have a God, natural reason tells us, he must be worshipped: he must be treated with, addressed to, etc. as the Doctor speaks; which are not properly worship, but the manner how we must come to him, to tender our worship; neither is there the least mention of parts of worship, there, neither can any man reduce Instituted-worship thither. Will it follow, because I must have the Lord for my God, therefore, I must Worship him, with Sacrifices, as of old; or with Sacraments, as now? Indeed Natural-worship belongs to this Commandment, to love, fear, trust in our God, etc. but as the matter of it, flowing from the principal object, [God alone for our God:] and thus Divines distinguishing of Worship, into natural and instituted, do reduce the first sort, to the first Commandment, the latter to the second; but still making the first Comandment principally to respect a Right object. Hear some of them speak their own sense; [The first Commandment hath three things in it. 1. We must have a God. 2. Him for our God. 3. Him alone, and none else.] Sure this is some new Casuist, and Ordinary Divinity, as the Doctor calls all but his own: No it is the Learned, Renowned Bishop of Winchester, in his Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, on the first Commandment. pag. 141. I shall add to him, another very Pious & Learned, (in the Doctors own Judgement) the Archbishop of Armach; [Here is commanded, 1. The having of a God. 2. One only God. 3. The true God and no other for our God, etc.] Body of Divinity. p. 214. But hear his own gloss: What is the general importance of that (1.) Precept? That we must acknowledge the God of Israel to be God, and resolve there is no other God before, or beside him.  
But see the force of Truth, 
Dr. Hammond, Pract. Catech. Append. on, 1. Command.  compelling her adversaries to confute themselves. Hear what the Doctor says here; [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, not the nimiety of the Affirmative.] Is not this to confess, 1. That the principal matter of the first Commandment, is a right object, God alone, without any rivals? 2. That there may be Superstition and excess in that Commandment, if not in the Affirmative part, yet in the Negative part, there may; yet the Doctor would acknowledge no excess to be Superstition, or Superstition to be excess in Religion.  
[In the second, 
p. 43. n. 4.  there is not (says he) a word to determine the matter of it to Commanded worship, as hath been evidenced beyond all question.] Let him look back, to what I have said already to it, and he will find his evidence to be very questionable, if not, none at all: ad pag. 34. n. 10. Having there glossed that Commandment thus, [God must be worshipped in a manner, peculiar to him, and appointed by him.] I suppose the Doctor intended it of instituted Worship; whereof God himself must appoint the Materials; and is not that to determine in general the matter of that Commandment? But if that be not, what is the Subject of the 2. Commandment, in the Doctor's new Divinity? [It is the prohibition of Idolworship; and bending the knee to the true God, and none else, observing of Christmas, etc. are remote enough from that guilt.] Oh! how Jealous is the Doctor, lest his Christmas should suffer, as superstitious, by the second Commandment! Truly he needed not to fear it, if he do not make it a part of instituted Worship by the will of man. But let that pass: Is the prohibition of Idolworship only, the Subject of that Commandment? that he must say, or he says nothing; yet that he cannot well say, without contradiction to what he said afore; that part of the sense and scope of that Commandment, was, [That God must appoint his own Worship.] which sure is not only, in prohibition of Idolworship. And yet, [see the luck of it,] his own words; the Doctor asks, 
n. 8. p. 44.  [what is the Affirmative part of the second Commandment, or how can it be evidenced that there is any, or any more indeed, than a probibition of Idolworship, appendent to the, no other Gods, in the first Commandment, etc.] But, first, the Doctor gave us the Affirmative part of it just now; [God must appoint his own worship.] And 2. if there be no more in it, than a prohibition of Idolworship; let the Doctor do himself so much favour, as to reconcile himself to himself, for they are at a vast distance: For the Affirmative part, he hath found it, upon a second reveiw; [If an affirmative part be to be understood, must it not be, howing down to the true God? etc.] Be it so, (though that, as part of natural Worship, may fall into the first Commandment) yet that's not all; but also that God must appoint every part of his own Worship, as is confessed. But 3. One thing must not be forgotten; That he makes Idol worship, here forbidden, [An appendent to (the first Commandment) not other Gods.] And if so, the Doctor hath lost the second Commandment, (as well as Papists have) by joining it to the first, as an appendent to it. For he told us, but a little afore, num 3. [The Superstition forbidden in that Commandment is— the taking in other rivals to that worship etc.] And now he says, [The Prohibition of Idolworship, is an appendent to that, no other Gods, in the first Commandment.] But say I, an Idol or Image worshipped, is a rival to that Worship, which belongs to the true God incommunicably: ergo, Idolworship is forbidden in the first Commandment, and so our Catechist hath joined with Papists, and lost the second Commandment. I add; for a close of this: The Doctor hath assigned the Affirmative part of the second Commandment, to be, [That God must appoint his own worship.] Now I demand (as a Disciple or Learner, of the Doctor,) what is the Negative part that answers to that Affirmative? must it not be this? [No man must prescribe, or Worship God, by any kind of Worship, but what he hath appointed?] That very gloss of the Doctors, I put in my Margin; in Will-worship. sect. 1. p. 45. I turned to the place in this Account, to see what he said to it: and he wisely waves it; infra, pag. 99 n. 15. Only he forgot what he had said here, and contradicts himself, by yielding an Affirmative and Negative part of that Commandment, which he here denied: but of that more, when we come at it. But because this Divinity of mine, is too old, or too new for the Doctor; [That the Subject of the second Commandment, is, a right matter of Worship.] Of which the Doctor cannot see one word there; I shall gratify him with two eminent Catechists Judgements, of the sum and scope of that Commandment; whom, I hope, he will not undervalue. The first is, the Bishop of Winchester: who thus instructs his Catechumene in the sense of this Commandment: 
Pattern of Ca●e Chest doct. p. 196. on 2. Commandment  [The precept prescribeth, two things 1. That for his honour, in outward Worship, he will have modum à se praescriptum; The special thing here forbidden, is the not making of Images, but a further thing is set down, Col. 2.23. Invented-worship: for (to make) in this place signifieth to invent: The general thing here commanded, is, that we should Worship God, after the Order, that he hath prescribed, Heb. 8.5. Exod. 25.40. Acts 3.22. Deut. 12.32. Jer. 2.11. Deut. 5.32. For as Chrysost. saith, Non est honour, se dedecus, si vel contra, vel praeter mandatum fiat.] Here the Doctor may find, the general sum of this Precept, and the Affirmative and Negative parts; what is forbidden, what is commanded. If this be not clear, and home enough, I shall pleasure him with another as learned as he; 
Body of Divinity. p. 222, 223 Vide Zanch. in 2. precept. Alsted. compend. Theolog. Til. Syst. Theol. disp. 4. de 2. precept. Virel in his Grounds.  the renowned Archbishop of Armach: whose words are these, on the second Commandment. [What is the scope and meaning of this Commandment? To bind all men to that solemn form of Religious worship, which God in his word prescribeth, that we serve him according to his will, Deut. 12.32. What is forbidden? every form of Worship, though of the true God, contrary to, or divers from the prescript of his word, Matth. 15.9. called by the Apostle, Will-worship, (mark that) Col. 2.23.] And as if he had not said enough, he goes over it again; [What is required to Worship God? 1. That we give unto God, that Worship, which he himself hath prescribed. 2. That alone, without addition, or alteration. What is forbidden? 1. The neglect of his ordinances. 2. 
Dr. Featly Handmaid to Devot. In confess. of sin against the 2 Com. And who not.  The adding any thing unto that pure Worship, when we serve him, by any other means, than himself hath commanded.] I hope now, the Doctor will be satisfied with these Authorities, and take notice, where I learned my Divinity, in this, and other points. Yet something I have learned from the Doctors own Catechism, (I will confess, by whom I have profited.) Besides what I have produced from him, ad p. 34. n. 8. I have been further instructed by him, in the senfe of the second Commandment. 
Of Idolatry, s. 13. p. 6.  [The word Idol signifies an Image, Sculpture, etc. But besides, these two things, 1. The Heathen Gods, under the notion of false (together with the Temples, wherein they were worshipped.) 2. The same again, and their Worships, 
* That vileness and filthiness, which was wont to be used in their Idol Feasts, is here forbidden. Append. on 2. Com.  under the notions of filled by, unclean, and abominable.] Now hence I observed, 1. That the Heathen Gods, as false Gods, as they were forbidden rather in the first Commandment, as rivals to that Worship; so they might be worshipped without an Idol, or Image, and so were not forbidden in this second Commandment, which prohibits (says the Doctor) only Idolworship. This confounds and jumbles the two first Commandments together, 2. If the Temples wherein, and the filthy, unclean services, wherewith they served their Gods, were forbidden under the second Commandment; I would say, this cannot be, as Idols or Images, but as parts of Worship, and then the Commandment may, by the same reason, forbidden any other kind or sort of Worship, tendered to the true God: as it commands all Worship prescribed by Him: which is the same, that those other Divines hold out, and which the Doctor hath so much declined, as so much prejudicial to his opinion, and main cause. But enough of that Commandment.  
For the third Commandment, that the Subject of it, is a right manner, he cannot assent to, because he hath in his Catechism, glossed it another way. He says therefore; [I had thought our Saviour, 
p. 43. n. 5.  Matth. 6. (it should be, 5.) had given us the sum of it, Thou shalt not forswear thyself but perform thy oaths; the Negative, and Affirmative parts of it, etc.] But other Divines think otherwise; and perhaps the Doctor himself sometimes: I know how he hath expounded this Commandment to his Disciples in his Catechism; and I am loath to be lead into a new Controversy; yet to rescue oppressed truth, I shall say something to his Newfound gloss. 1. It is the judgement of the best Interpreters, that our Saviour here corrected the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees, put upon the Laws of God; and in special here, upon the third Commandment: which is by several men, understood in a double sense. 1. That our Saviour, first, lays down the false Interpretation of the Pharisees, 
See Dr. Andr. Serm. on 2 Com. p. 40.  as if nothing were meant by [Taking of God's Name in vain] but forswearing and perjury: So that Learned and Pious Perkins on the place. 2. Others think (and very probably) that he especially looks at these words, Levit. 19.12. [Thou shalt not forswear thyself, etc.] Which were not the words of the Pharisees, but of God, by Moses; which they glossed and corrupted divers ways: as 1. That it was lawful, for a man to swear in ordinary discourse, if they did not forswear themselves; against this our Saviour opposes, [Swear not at all.] 2. That they allowed swearing by other things, the heavens, earth, temple, etc. Even to esteem it no perjury, though false, to which our Saviour opposes; [Swear not by heavens, etc. nor any thing,] but by the Name of God, when just occasion to swear. Let your yea, be yea, etc. Thus the Judicious Chemnitius interprets the words: so that our Saviour had no respect directly to the third Commandment, but as swearing and forswearing, were particular branches of sins there forbidden, and of Taking Gods Name in vain. 
Pract. Catech. p. 120.  But the Doctor says peremptorily; [Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain, is undoubtedly, no more then, thou shalt not forswear thyself; swearing, simply taken, is not reduced to this Commandment.] I shall not enter the debate with the Doctor myself, for I have none, but new and Ordinary Divinity. I shall therefore go to School to those Learned Catechists, before cited, who undoubtedly have found another meaning of the third Commandment. 
Patt. of Catech. doctr. p. 221.  The Bishop of Winchester: thus Paraphrases it. [The object of this Commandment, is the Name of God: The thing commanded, is praise, and this praise must be to his Name— The Name is that, whereby we know a man, or thing, etc. So whatsoever God is known by, is meant by his Name in this place.] The other, 
Body of Divin. p. 236.  the Archbishop is more express and full. [What is the sum of this Commandment? That we impeach not, but by all means advance the glorious Name of God, in all things he makes himself known to men: 1. His Titles, Jehovah, etc. 2. His Properties and Attributes. 3. His Works and Actions. 4. His Word. 5. Sacraments. 6. Censures. 7. Prayer. 8. The whole Worship of God, in all his Ordinances, etc.] I spare to produce any more, of our Divines, and return to the Doctor: He says, 1. [Thou shalt not take the Name, etc. is undoubtedly, no more, than thou shalt not forswear thyself. 2. Swearing simply, is not reduced to this Commandment.] I demand then, to what Commandment, was common, rash, ordinary swearing reduced? or were the Jews indulged swearing? (as some of the Fathers seem to hold;) and to swear by the creatures also? The Law Deut. 6.13. etc. [Thou shalt swear by his Name,] imports two things, 1. That swearing there was not meant of Ordinary swearing in common discourse, but upon just occasions, before a Magistrate, etc. 2. That when they did swear, they must swear by the Name of God, that is, by God himself, and no other creature, or thing. That Law of Moses, was not a permission, (as the Doctor calls it) but a precept. What then does the Doctor mean, by swearing, simply taken, etc. That it was sometimes lawful to swear upon just occasions. That's allowed also in the Gospel: our Saviour came not to void that Law; or that 
* See p. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all, is forbidden (by Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before.  simple swearing, either without perjury, or ordinarily, by the Name of God, was permitted the 
* Seep. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all, is forbidden (by Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before.  Jews by Moses? This I suppose, he will not say. Yet faintly says the contrary. [Perhaps foolish, wanton (sure, profane, blasphemous) using of God's Name, may be resolved, to be there forbidden by reduction.] Is it but perhaps, foolish and wanton using of God's Name may be resolved to be there forbidden? It's well he will yield that profane, and blasphemous using of God's Name is there forbidden. Yet I would be bold to ask my Catechist one question more: How can (I say not, foolish and wanton) profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name be forbidden in that Commandment, so much, as by reduction, if the taking Gods Name in vain, be undoubtedly, no more, than thou shalt not forswear thyself? Cannot mwn profane and blaspheme God's Name, but only when they forswear themselves? or have foolish and wanton using God's Name, by common swearing, any thing to do with perjury? I would but propound this argument; [To use the Name of God, unreverently, was ever a Sin, against some moral Law; but to use the Name of God foolishly, wantonly, (much more, profanely, blasphemously) is to use the Name of God, unreverently, and vainly: ergo,] If against a Moral-law, I ask again, Against which Commandment, if not against the third? To shut up this: the Doctor says, Pract. Cat. p. 121. [Swearing by other inferior things, are now utterly unlawful:] What now only? were they not so, in the Old-law? It seems not, by the Doctor; for he says, this is something, that Christ hath added to perfect the Law; [A Christian must not use any of those Oaths.] Belike a Jew might: But why not a Christian now? Hear his reason: [Because every of these are Creatures of God (whose whole being consists in reference to him) & not to be subjected to their lust, to be tossed & defamed, by their unnecessary oaths.] Will not the same reason serve against the Jews, swearing by inferior Creatures? were they not then the Creatures of God, and the rest? Why might not the Doctor have given this reason, because it is a taking of God's Name in vain, (which is much made known by the Creatures) and against the Commandment, which requires, that when men do swear, they swear only by his Name. But these would have marred his new gloss. I leave it to him.  
And now we are come to consider the subject of the fourth Commandment, the right time, his own appointed day: Which he does not, cannot deny, for he hath granted it elsewhere; but yet hath somewhat to say. 
p. 44. n. 6.  1. [Sure not so, as to prohibit all others, there were other, Fast and Feasts appointed, besides the weekly rest, etc.] 'Tis true; but then they were of Gods own appointment, (who may dispense with his own Laws) and if appointed by men, they were but Circumstances, not parts of Worship, as the Doctor confesses: But I was speaking of Worship, he knows. In Religion or Worship of God, four things are considerable, the last whereof is, a right Time, his own appointed Day, viz. as a part of Worship: and so all other Days are forbidden. But then, secondly, he hath another elusion, [Under the New Testament, the first day of the week, certainly was not the last, which the Decalogue prescribed, etc.] This will prove the Doctors mistake, common to him with others: [That the fourth Commandment, prescribed, nothing, but the seventh or last day of the week:] Which if it be true, the fourth Commandment is as fully void, as that Commandment which prescribed the seventh year Sabbath, or any other particular Holiday. The Doctor himself hath granted, that the fourth commandment requires, that we give God, not less than one day in seven: which if it be true, the principal matter of the fourth Commandment, was not that seventh day; for that is void, says he, say all; but one day in seven, but still of Divine appointment, as being a part of Worship. The Lord's day then, being one of seven, and confessedly of Divine Institution by the Apostles, whose appointments were Divine. There is no ask, [why the Apostles should not (either they or their successors) institute other days] (as parts of Worship, that must be minded:) the reason is, because the Apostles had Divine Authority, to institute the Lords day, according to the fourth Commandment, one day of seven, but neither they, much less their successors, can produce any Commission, to institute other days, I say still, as parts of Worship: if as Circumstances only of Worship, it is nothing to the purpose, as I have often said. And now, for all that is said, the Subjects of the four first Commandments, are distinct, and clear, as I have propounded them; and will be a ground sufficient to build that on, which is intended, 
p. 44. n. 7.  [That Superstition may extend, to the whole first Table, when there is a nimiety or excess in any one of them.] To the further confirming whereof, I now proceed.  
But first, the Doctor is willing to expose me, to the scorn of all Readers, for want of Ingenuity, or Charity, to make the best construction of my words: He says, 
n. 8.  [to persuade (that assertion afore) he commends one observation to us, but such, as I think, never slipped from any man before him.] Surely the Doctor hath met with some Erratas, in some Authors Printed, which are as unreasonable, or as much nonsense, as these of mine are. He might have said; either it may be the Printers fault; or some Inadvertency in the Author; or else have looked forward, how I improved my notion (which he does at last, when he hath sufficiently flouted me.) Any of these had becomed him better, then to make himself mirth, by others (undeserved) shame. I shall not blush, to confess, there was an Inadvertency in me in passing those words. For those words (the Commandments of God having a Negative and Affirmative part) were needless and impertinent here: It had been sufficient to have said, the duties of Religion do stand in the midst, between two extremes, as virtues do; as my application shows my meaning to be: Or thus, In stead of those first words, I should have said; In or against every Commandment of God, here are sins of omission in the defect, (against the Affirmative part) and of Commission in the excess, (against the Negative part) and the duties of Religion do stand in the midst (between those two sorts of sins) as virtues between two extremes: or thus we must observe, 1. That the Commandments of God have every one of them, a Negative & an Affirmative part, expressed or understood; the omission being a sin against the Affirmative part, the commission being a sin against the Negative; and then 2. The duties of Religion stand in the midst (between those two sorts of sins) as virtues, between two extremes. Are not both these true and good sense? But taking the advantage, to abuse his Adversary, he goes on: First, to question the Cornerstone; [What is the Affirmative part of the second Commandment, or can it be evidenced it hath any?] Where of we have given him a full account above, 
Ad p. 43. n. 4. p. 45. n. 9  Then, [he will suppose with me, that every Commandment hath its Negative and Affirmative part: he demands only, how he could think, that the duties of Religion, stand in the midst? What's the Antecedant, to which, in the midst relates? there is no other in the period, but the Affirmative and Negative part: but do duties of Religion stand in the midst between them two?] And then he goes on to make himself merry, and me a scorn: But letting that pass; might he not in the second part of the Period, have found, two extremes, between which (as virtues do) the duties of Religion stand? 
p. 45. n. 10.  This he stumbles on at length; and would (gladly no doubt) affix that possible meaning to my words. [But then to what purpose was the mention of the two parts, Affirmative and Negative: for this, he is still to seek; and his Plaster not so fit for the malady as he could have wished, and yet hath no better, etc.] Yes, there was a better at hand, and he at last finds it; [The best of it is, he hath not pursued this observation, in the exemplification thereof.] Why, the exemplifications, might have suggested my meaning to him, in all the four Commandments. [In the first, a double error; one in the defect, that's Atheism; having no God at all: the other in the excess, that's Polytheisme, having too many:] and so of the rest: the duty of Religion stands in the midst, to have God, and him alone to Worship; this is plain enough to be my meaning. Yet the Doctor answers his own question, 
n. 11.  [To what purpose was this observation?] Uncharitably enough; [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 second Commandment, etc.] God deal so with my soul, as I had no design, but to search out and settle the truth: which I think will now appear, though the Doctor would fain cloud it, by saying, (as if it were my conclusion) All Additions to the rule of Worship, are excesses against the second Commandment;] Whereas I meant, all Additions of Worship, (not, of Circumstances) are excess against that Commandment: as I have proved.  
Upon this mistake, are all those questions of the Doctor: 
p. 46. n. 12.  [All worship of Idols is forbidden in the second Commandment, but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols? etc.] The Doctor varies the question, and then multiplies his questions: He hath oft enough been told, it is not about uncommanded Rites, (unless made parts of Worship,) but uncommanded Worship: A Rite or Ceremony made a part of Worship, by men, is an Idol or Image: as, supra on the second Commandment.  
[All perjury, 
p. 46. n. 12.  (and (by Christ's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) voluntary swearing at all) is forbidden in the third Commandment, but how come Rites and Ceremonies, and Gestures, though never so ridiculous, to be either oaths or perjuries? etc.] True it is, first, that perjury, (as it is the grossest taking of God's Name in vain, to call him to witness a lie) is forbidden in the third Commandment: but so was all voluntary swearing by the Name of God, or Creatures, forbidden in the same Commandment: on the same reason, in the Judgement of the best Divines: 2. The Doctor's question, [How come ridiculous Rites and Ceremonies, etc. (in the worship of God) to be perjury?] is itself ridiculous: for though they be not perjury, yet are they, Take of God's Name in vain. His question is grounded upon a double false Supposition: first, That the third Commandment did forbid only perjury: 2. That voluntary swearing, was not forbidden in that Commandment, by Moses, but is part of Christ's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or perfection added to the Law, before imperfect; both which are proved false. The like may be said to the next question, about the fourth Commandment. [What words of that Commandment, conclude against instituting of other Holidays, etc. as an excess? etc.] Those words, six days for labour, and one only for rest in a week, at God's appointment, as an Holy day, do conclude against all men's instituting other Holidays: as is proved elsewhere.  
I gave an instance of an excess in the fourth Commandment, 
n. 14.  [In Jeroboams Feast, Instituted by himself, like unto the Feast which was in Judea,] of God's institution: what was it, that made that criminous? Let the Doctor tell us; [This sure was the sin of Jeroboam, to set up Calves in Dan and Bethel, and so in like manner, a Feast, like that in Judea; and sacrificing there; contrary to the command of making Jerusalem the only place of sacrifice. etc.] So the crime was only, with respect to the place. 
n. 15.  [Haddit that Feast been separated from that appendent sin, of sacrificing elsewhere, then God had appointed, etc. I shall desire to know, why that might not have been as blameless, as the Reubenites erecting an Altar by Jordan.] Belike then, if the King of Judah, had altered Gods appointed Feast, at Jerusalem, of his own head, that had been no sin. For the Reubenites Altar, there are Learned men, that say, they did ill in erecting of it, and the rest in allowing it: So the ever Honoured and Judicious Calvin, upon Josh. 22. Duae tribus, etc. [The two Tribes and half did very ill, etc.] But the Doctor respects not his judgement. What thinks he of the Learned and Renowned Doctor Fulk; [The two Tribes and half, Josh. 22. Made not an Image, but an Altar, for a memorial; and yet their fact was not commendable, etc.] Against  of Images; 
See Joseph. Antiq. l. 5. c. 1. It was not for Worship, etc. p. 47. n. 17.  p. 649. However the difference between that Feast of Jeroboam, and the Altar at Jordan, is visible; The one was made a part of Worship, by Jeroboam, as the Chapels, and Sacrifices and Priests were; but the other a Monument only of a civil thing.  
[And why may not a Christian Festival, as a Memorial, not to draw off any man's heart, from any part of Gods prescribed Worship, be as innocent, as that?] True, if only as a Memorial; a Circumstance of Worship, and not as a part of Worship; an Holiday, equal with the Lordsday, etc. that's it that makes it a crime. And we know, that his Christmas Festival was so made and accounted; and did draw away many men's hearts from some part of Gods prescribed worship, by putting more honour on it, and less on the Lords-Sabbath; as we have showed: Otherwise, I shall use his own words, [Why might not our Jealous brethren, the Doctor and those of his persuasion, that came out to dispute against us, imitate the Israelites, and lay down that design, and go back to their houses in peace?]  
[We know (says he) Naaman built him an Altar in his own Country, 
n. 18.  and there offered unto the God of Heaven.] What he knows I cannot tell, but I know no such thing, by that story. For, first, the text says not the Prophet granted his request, to let him carry away two mules burden of the earth from (not Jerusalem, but) Samaria. 2. Much less, that he built him an Altar in his own Country; though he pretended so much: 3. And yet less, that he offered sacrifice there to the God of Heaven. For, first, Jerusalem was the place appointed for Worship, John 4. and therefore Proselytes came thither to worship: 2. For sacrifice, himself says, [It was contrary to the express word of God, which had commanded, that all sacrifice, should be offered at Jerusalem, n. 14.] 3. If he offered it, in his own Country; who was then and their his Priest? Sacrifices were tied as well to be offered by a Levitical Priest, as at the Altar at Jerusalem: But if some of this were granted him, that the Prophet granted him (which is most improbable upon the former considerations) and he carried away some of that earth, and with it, built an Altar, yet it might be, as the Reubenites, not for sacrifice, but as a Memorial, to put others in mind, what God he now served. This is but a by-business, and I needed not to have followed him in it, but only to take down his confidence, in interpreting Scripture; and to discover the grounds of his mistakes, in setting up Festivals, as Days more holy, and as parts of Worship: as this Altar, if erected to the end of sacrificing to the God of Heaven, would have been.  
But my conclusion, will not yet down, 
p. 48. n. 19  [That there may be Superstition in a general sense, in or against all the Commandments of the first Table, in the excessive part, etc.] Or if it were so; [Yet (says the Doctor) I hope the observing of a few blameless, decent, Ceremonies, instituting a Christian Festival, etc. will not prove to be any of those excesses.] We have answered twenty times I think; it is not uncommanded Circumstances, but uncommanded Worship, that is proved guilty of excess.  
But soft and fair; The Doctor says, 
n. 20.  [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 seventh Commandment: Fornication, etc. the 
* The Dr. hath given us both the extremes. Quest. of Divorce, s. 31. A double Adultery, one in taking a new wife whilst the former liveth, the other in deserting (and denying the duty of marriage to) the rejected wife. There Adultery, taking another wife, or woman, was made the excess, in the seventh Commandment, here he makes it the defect.  extreme on one side, take which he will, excess or defect; I demand what is the other extreme, and whether placed by those Divines named, under the head of Superstition, etc.] This is a mere perverting of the question, which is not of the ten; but of the four Commandments of the first Table: And therefore his instance of the seventh Commandment, is beside the business. To be sure, Superstition is not to be looked for, in the second Table, but in the first, which hath respect to Worship: And he should make himself ridiculous, that would imagine any man so simple, as to place the extreme of the seventh Commandment, under the Head of Superstition: Yet of some Commandments of the second Table, it's apparent, there may be extremes, and so one in the defect, another in the excess. Though not under the Head of Superstition: ergo, In the fifth Commandment: Not to honour our Parents, is the defect: to honour them above God, is an excess. In the sixth, neglect of our own, or others life, is a defect; to violate it, is an excess; say the same of the 7.8.9. Commandments: But this is a needless quarrel; only to make some sport. Does not the Doctor know that moral virtues stand between two vices, in the extremes, one in the excess, the other in the defect: Suppose it be, Fortitude, Justice, Chastity (by him named) and the rest: shall I need to send him to his Ethics, to find out the extremes, to every virtue? To conclude, are there not sius of Omission, and Commission, in every Commandment? the one against the Affirmative part of the Command, leaving undone what is commanded, the other against the Negative part thereof, doing what is forbidden; and are not, doing too much, and leaving undone, what is commanded, (which is doing too little) the two extremes, in the excess and defect? And because all this discourse, is with respect to the main question, [That Superstition is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess.] I shall show him a learned heathen, that gives him both the extremes in Religion, 
* Plutarc. in vit. Camilli. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Plutarch, by name; who bewails [the weakness and infirmity of men, not keeping within due bounds; but running one while into Superstition and vanity, another while into neglect and contempt of Divine thing:] Where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are opposed, as the excess and defect, and presently after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Religion set up in the midst, as the virtue, between those two extremes? I hope this old learning will please the Doctor I leave it to him.   

Section, 3. [And hence it may appear, that some are too short, in defigning the Species, or kinds of Superstition, etc. First, the learned School-man, who makes but three kinds of it, etc.]  
HEre I am first charged, for wronging Aquinas, [saying, 
p. 49. n. 7.  he makes but three kinds of Superstition, whereas it's evident, he makes four:] It's true, in the conclusion, he makes four, but in the body of that Article, he reduces them all to three; or rather, he makes but two, 1. when worship is given to the true God, but in an undue manner; 2. When it is given to a Creature; and that (says he) may be divided into many species, and he reduces them to three; Idolatry, Divination, and vain Observations, Ligatures, etc. Now it's evident, that the School-man is confused enough, in designing the Species of Superstition; and the last, of Ligatures, spells and vain observations, etc. may very well be reduced to Divination, as done by assistance of the Devil: as the Doctor (if I mistake not) hath somewhere referred them. But this is but a strife of words; certain it is, he is not distinct enough in this designation, nor hath discocovered all the Species of Superstition, which the Doctor himself hath yielded, some whereof, will not fall well under any of those which Aquinas hath assigned, unless, they may be referred to his cultus indebitus; For thus they may be ranged; Superstition is of two sorts; first, when Worship is given to a creature, which is due only to the Creator; or, second, When Worship is tendered to the true God, but, non prout debet, indebito modo; in an undue manner; and of this, there are many Species, as Aquinas confesses: Now that Aquinas is short in his distribution, I prove thus from himself; [If Superstition be a vice contrary to Religion in general in the excess; then according to the general Rules of Religion, there may be so many kinds of Superstition; But the first is his own definition: ergo,] The consequence is proved, because Superstition may extend as far as Religion: Now Religion in general, considers, either the right object, to whom Worship ought to be tendered, God alone, in the first Commandment: or the right way, how God will be worshipped, and that is, in there particulars: first, The right means, (as some call instituted Worship) in the second Commandment, his own prescribed Worship: or, 2. The right manner of tendering it, with all reverence: or, 3. The right Time especially, his own designed Day: and so the kinds of Superstition vary, according to these Rules of Religion. Aquinas himself; Art. 1. there in Corp. thus concludes, it, [Superstition is a vice opposite to Religion in the excess, not because it exhibites more to the Worship of God, then true Religion, but because it exhibites Divine worship, to whom it ought not, or in that manner it ought not.] And that manner is threefold as I have said. But it's no heeding what Aquinas says, in designing the kinds of Superstition, who was himself drowned in the Romish Superstition, which he would be tender to touch upon.  
A second mistake charged upon me, is, in referring Idolatry to the first Commandment, as some Divines do; 
p. 49. n. 2.  But (says he) [Those Divines must needs be those, that put the first and second Commandments into one (as Aquinas did, and I hoped the Diatribist had not been of his persuasion) else those words, Thou shalt not make to thyself, etc. being supposed to make a second Commandment, no Divine can be so irrational, as to deny Idolatry to be prohibited there.] I could answer, first, That the Doctor may well be placed among those Divines, who put the first and second Commandment into one, as was showed above. But I say further, this will prove but a strife of words: For if Idolatry be taken strictly, for the worshipping of an Idol, or Image, so it belongs to the second Commandment: but if it be taken, for the Worship of Heathen Gods, etc. as often it is, than I hope the Doctor will not deny but Idolatry may be found in the first Commandment. Is not Polytheisme Idolatry? is not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the worshipping of Daemons, or Angels, Idolatry? not against the second Commandment, for that prohibits only Idol, or Image-worship, (says the Doctor;) but Angels and Daemons may be Worshipped, without any Image. Shall we take the Doctors own former thoughts of this matter; He told us, a good while ago, [That the Heathen Idolatry, 
Of Idolatry, Sect. 65. p. 42.  was the worshipping of the many false Gods first, and then of the Images of them.] Mark here, two sorts of Idolatry, whereof the first, is not the second, and therefore not in the second Commandment, but in the first, or none. And when I said Divination, (which is a consulting with the Devil) is the worst kind of Idolatry, as worshipping the Devil, the worst of Creatures, instead of God; I hope the Doctor will not deny it to be Idolatry bad enough; I demand, against what Commandment? not the second, for that he says) prohibits only Image-worship; but those that use Divination, do not always Worship the Devil in an Image: and therefore that Idolatry is not forbidden in the second, but in the first Commandment. I suppose then, the Doctor doth mistake, with Aquinas, (rather than speak truth with me) when he says, [He supposes Aquinas was in the right in this, that made it a Species of Superstition, not of Idolotry; 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, first, Divination, may be a Species of Idolatry, and of Superstition too, if Idolatry be (as it is) a species of Superstition; 2. How he can say, [So it must more fitly belong to the the first 
* So he says, n. 3.  Commandment,] I do not well understand, for he said just before, [If Divination be Idolatry, sure that must be forbidden under the second Commandment.] Unless he will have it belong to both Commandments, the first, as it is Superstition, the second, as it is Idolatry; which I see not how he can well say; thirdly, [That Illegitimate Worship, being an offence against the due manner of God's Worship, must also belong to the first Commandment,] is neither agreeable with the truth, nor with with Aquinas, who makes the Species of Superstition, to respect the 
* To worship the true God by an Image is it not a sin against the manner of his Worship.  Object of Worship, cui non debet; and 2. the mode or manner of Worship, to the right Object: the first whereof must needs belong to the first Commandment, and the other, to other Commandments. These are indeed but niceties, but such as the Doctor is pleased to exercise us with; and do not a little concern himself.  
It is confessed by the Doctor, 
p. 49 n. 3.  [That it was an error in Amesius, to understand by the word Superstition, no more but the tendering of undue Worship to God, and also that he confined it to the second Commandment, when in all reason it belonged to the first.] But is it not as bad an Error in the Doctor to confine it to the first, when sure, it may be extended to the second? Is it not Superstition, to Worship the true God, by an Image? then Superstition belongs to two Commandments: But is it not Superstition to use ridiculous Ceremonies in God's Worship? that's against the third Commandment. And is it not Superstition, to be scrupulous to defend a man's self against his enemies on the Sabbath? that's against the fourth Commandment. Then it is equally an Error in the Doctor to confine Superstition to the first, as in Amesius to confine it to the second Commandment; and the Truth is, it extends to many, even all the four first Commandments. Quod erat demonstrandum.  
The next of my mistakes is,] 
p. 50. n 4.  That I affirm of that Species of Superstition, undue Worship tendered to God, that it is, properly Will-worship;] Which is but one Species of Superstition. Sure I am, Amesius understood it so, of new kinds of Worship instituted by men, against the scope of the 2. Commandment; and this most of our Divines call (in a strict sense) Will-worship. But I rather agreed with Aquinas here, that undue or Illegitimate-worship may refer to more Commandments; the third and fourth: it being possible, and too frequent for men, to Worship God unduly, in those Commandmets: But if we restrain the second Commandment to the matter of Worship; then that Worship which is materially of men's addition, may more properly (with the Scripture, and best Divines) be called Will-worship, and is but one Species of Superstition; as was said above.  
Yet another injury is done by me; that of Aquinas, his Illegitimate-worship, I give this gloss, [Not commanded of God, 
p. 50. n. 5.  but instituted and appointed by men.] But how will this appear? By the words of Aquinas himself, which having cited at large, he says, [nothing is more destructive to my pretensions, had it been considered.] Let's hear his fourfold gloss upon them, 
n. 6.  (that I may never cite Aquinas more in this matter) thus he says, [1. That Illegitimate-worship, is, in Aquinas Vitiated-worship, and so more than uncommanded, that is, prohibited; Illegitimate signifies, not without, but against Law.] And here he empties his Notebook about that word: But I say, let it signify that which is forbidden by Law; so say I, is all Vncommanded Worship; as was proved afore by the Doctors own Confession; therefore Illegitimate-Worship, and uncommanded, are all one; and that in Aquinas his sense, is Vitiated-worship: secondly, [The superfluity of Worship (says Aquinas) Vitiates the Worship of God, when any thing is assumed, which neither by Divine, nor Ecclesiastical appointment, belongs to the glory of God, etc.] The Doctor's gloss is this, That the Superfluity of it consists not, in being superadded to Gods commands only, but to the Church's appointment also; and so that which is ordained by the Church, though not by God, comes not under the stile of Superfluous or Illegitimate.] By this I see, where the Doctor learned his old Divinity, even in the Romish Schools (wherein most of his Size, spend their first studies, scorning all our own Common-place men, medullas, and models of Divinity.) For how readily does he shake hands with Aquinas in the Authority, of the Church's appointment, as in other things not a few: But will the Doctor stand to this, [That the Church's appointments of Worship (of that Aquinas and we speak) are not Superfluous, nor Illegitimate?] 
De Illegitime cultu: Tit. Articuli.  I hope he will not join with Aquinas and the Church of Rome in this; yet he dare go far with them, even to call Ecclesiastical appointments, Semidivine at least, as shall appear hereafter: see p. 83. n. 4. Divinarum Sanctionem, etc. But thirdly, [That what tends to the glory of God, or subjecting a man to God, is neither superfluous nor Illegitimate, so it be ordained by the Church,] It's one thing what men intent by their appointments (who doth not pretend the glory of God and that subjection? Papists and Heathens do so, sometimes) and another to tend really to those ends. Now certain it is, no appointments of Worship by men, can tend to the glory of God, etc. Which he hath peremptorily forbidden: And one thing more; The Doctor seems to restrain this Lawfulness, [To the Ordination of the Church,] as if private or particular persons appointments, to those ends, were superfluous and Illegitimate; which I suppose he will not grant, viderit ipse, yet Aquinas restrains it only to the Church, the holy Church of Rome. 4. The School-man makes Worship of God Illegitimate, as well by the pravity, as the superfluity of it: How may that be? Two ways, one whereof is (which the Doctor takes notice of.) 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's worse than a superfluity in the Worship of God.] Here is scarce any minute part of sound Doctrine, in this, (to return him his own words.) For, first, It savours rankly of the Romish usurpation, that no Ceremony may be used publicly by a Minister contrary to the Custom of the Church: second, That it is a pravity, so to do; which may rather go for a Superfluity at most. 3. That it is a pravity, worse than superfluity of Worship, to use a Ceremony in public; whereas superadded Worship, is far worse, then using a new Ceremony, not ordained by the Church: 4. That he charges this pravity upon me, or others for sitting at the Sacrament; But, first, we are speaking of Worship, not of a rite or gesture of Worship, such is sitting at the Sacrament. 2. How does he know, that I sit at the Sacrament? I may perhaps stand, or kneel, for aught he knows, according to the custom of the places where I come; and may defend my practice, by the Authority of Saint Ambrose, cited to me, p. 232. But thirdly, suppose I do sit; I shall not fear to profess my Judgement, that I think it nearer to the first Institution of the Supper, than his kneeling; and why people should not conform rather to Christ himself and his Apostles, then to the custom of a Church, I know no reason, but, [The Statutes of Omri are kept,] and the like. But this I will say, if the Doctor or his Church, institute and command kneeling, as a special, more special and better Worship of God, then sitting, I believe, they would be Superstitious enough; and injurious to Jesus Christ, as preferring themselves before him, as if he were less humble, or less devout in his sitting, than they in their kneeling, And now I hope, the Doctor will never cite Aquinas more, in this matter.  
That the barbarous Ceremonies of Baal's Priests, etc. should be an excess against the third Commandment, a taking God's name in vain; he cannot yet digest, [Because it is by Christ rendered, 
p. 51. n. 7.  forswearing one's self.] But that is proved the Doctor's mistake, against the stream of the best Interpreters: [Nor did Baal's Priests, ever use the name of God at all, and so, not in vain.] Sure those Priests accounted Baal for a God (they called the true God, Baali sometimes, but God forbids it) and Elias bade them call upon their God; Then, those Ceremonies used, were part of their Worship (ridiculous enough if they had been offered to the true God) and being in Worship, and false, they must be against some Commandment: Not the first, that forbids other Objects of Worship, beside God. Not the second, that forbids only Idol or Image Worship (says he.) Not the fourth, that respects only the Due Time of Worship; ergo, against the third or none. The Doctor passes by the ridiculous rites and gestures of Papists in their Worship, as loath to offend them, with charge of excess, or Superstition; though not bold enough to defend them. 
p. 52. n. 8.  As for dedicating of Holidays to Saints by Papists, and comparing it with Jeroboams Feast, he does not like it; [They are, he says, neither fitly paralleled, nor appropriated to Papists, when such days were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs, long before the name or errors of Papists were in the World.] But on which side is the wrong, in this charge of dedicating of days? Jeroboams? or Papists? Jeroboams, I hope he will not say, for that is proved Superstitious above. If he think I have wronged Papists in that parallel: Let him stand out and justify their Superstition, in that matter, which all, even the Church of England did condemn. 1. That dedicated to 
* This is the Doctor's Language here: dedicating holy days to Saints: and dedication of Holidays. n. 8, &. 11.  the Saints, and to their Worship, and not to God. 2. That made parts of Worship. 3. That some were no Saints, but wicked men, and some no men at all. 4. Their Number, etc. Jeroboam was a Saint to them. And now I hope it might well be appropriated to Papists? For those days dedicated to the memorial of Martyrs, were nothing like these of Papists; they were but occasions, or Circumstances of Worship; but Papists (as the Doctor his Christmas) make them parts of Worship, etc. And this may satisfy, what is largely said, in num. 9.10, 11. Only this may be added to the num. 11. That I do not charge the Doctor with that excess, of the Jews scrupulosity on their Sabbath: but only bring it as an instance of Superstition in the fourth Commandment.   

Section, 4. [Superstition then, in this general notion, as an excess in Religion, hath as many Species, or kinds, as there are Commandments of the first Table. But it is no easy matter to discover all, etc.]  
HEre I am charged with a design, 
p. 53. n. 1, 2  [becoming humble in stead of Magisterial; because I implore the Readers pardon, if I be not so Logically accurate, in setting down the particular kinds of Superstition, as I would.] I profess sincerely, against all designs, but searching out of truth; and what may my design be herein? Why this, [To leave the word Superstition in the Clouds,— that it may be useful for him, as a Mormo, to affright men out of their obedience to the Church; and to make sure of a reserve, to add more, when he hath need of them.] Truly to me it seems strange, that I had a design, to cloud the word Superstition, having, in that afore, been driving away those foggy mists, which himself and others, have put upon it: I know no better way, to clear the word or thing then to give the definition of it first, and then the division of it, into species; which is all I have hitherto done: only confessing now, the particulars may be more, than I can easily reduce to the four Commandments; wherein that Superstition may be found. I therefore in this and the following Sections, did enumerate such and so many, as I thought sufficient for my purpose: which being proved to be so in Thesi, might be as so many principles, or propositions, to conclude the Doctor in Hypothesi, to be Superstitious, in his observation of his Festival. And now the Doctor hath my full design, in this performance; which belike, he suspecting, is willing to pass by, no less than ten Sections at once; lest his Reader, 
p. 54. n. 2.  taking notice of those particular instances of Superstition, might be ready to make up the Syllogism, and conclude him Superstitious. The Doctor might have done me, and the truth this favour, to say to the several kinds by me alleged, I assent, or descent, that this is Superstition; some of them indeed, he hath elsewhere set down, as excesses in Religion, and kinds of Superstition; but why does he not acknowledge, or deny them here? If I may guests, one reason, I think, is, because he, having given forth his description of Superstition, to be clearly, Superstitum cultus; as if it had no other proper sense, was not willing the Reader should know him so imprudent as afterwards, to contradict, or at least countermine himself, by giving other kinds thereof. And if Superstition were no more but the worshipping of Daemons, he were very injurious, that would charge the Church of England, or himself, with this crime of Superstition. For example, the Doctor grants a Negative Superstition, Sect. 29. of Superst. [Placing Piety in the Negative, in not kneeling, etc.] Hence the diligent Reader, would be ready to say; this is far from Superstitum cultus, and yet granted by the Doctor, to be a kind of Superstition; ergo, his description was too short and narrow: The like may be said of the rest if they be truly kinds of Superstition; if not, the Doctor hath by his silence consented to them; why else did he not oppose them? for they may be of ill consequence to him, in Hypothesi. All he says here, is, [What follows in the ten following Sections, I shall resolvedly pass over, though there be many things fit to be noted, partly because he promises they shall soon recur again, and partly belong to other Tracts, etc. where we shall sure meet with them, etc.] But first, I find no such promise of mine, though I knew, I should have use of them, in place convenient; nor secondly, does he desire to meet with them; for he waves most of them, when he meets them, as shall appear.   

Section 5.  
1. Negative, when men abstain from some thing, under a notion of Religion, etc. And so on to the end of the 14. Section.   

Section 15. Having thus made way for our debate with the Doctor by showing the nature of Superstition, etc.  
THe offence taken at this Section is, 
p. 55. n. 2.  that I say, [commonly those that are most superstitious, are most confident, of their Innocency and Piety, etc.] The Doctor would wish and hope to make it convertible; [They which are most confident of their Innocency, etc. are most Superstitious.] So to retort it upon me: Truly, what I said, was true enough, and needed not to have troubled him, unless he were guilty: for I expressly applied it to Romish Proselytes; and of them it's too evident, the most Superstitious, are most confident: It was no great charity in him to invert the proposition, & put it slily upon me, whom he cannot charge me with any one kind of Superstition, unless it be perhaps with Negative Superstition; 
n. 3.  which here [he allows me for my portion.] Not that he accuses me of Negative Superstition, (for I know he cannot) but that he grants me, the first kind of Superstition, viz. Negative, to be truly one kind of Superstition: but little cause to make sport with that Concession, if he consider the consequence thereof a little above. But he says, 
n. 4.  [He shall much accuse himself, if he cannot justify his notion of the word Superstition, to be as good, as Mr. C. his Super statutum.] Enough hath been said to Super statutum, already; I owned not that Notation of it. But if he will speak to the thing, I dare venture my skill, that he cannot justify his notion of it, in the largest sense of it, so well as I can this, of Super statutum: that all Superstition is above the Statute Law of Worship: but all Superstition is not Superstitum Cultus.  
Here should come in my 16. Section.  
Let's hear what he says; first, to clear me from owning that Notation, he takes notice, 
p. 56. n. 1.  [That I rather rested in the definition of the School-man, as afore] then in that notation of others; and yet how often would he persuade his Reader, that was my Notation? Then see how he justifies his own: [My second Section was not to give any complete definition of Superstition; 
n. 2.  but, etc.] But should he not here, or somewhere else, have given us a Complete definition of it; especially having one provided to his hand by the School-man? whom he follows at heels sometimes. Was not that definition avoided on purpose, that he might cloud and cover his own Superstition, by the old Heathenish usage of the word? We inquire not so much, what it signified of old, amongst Heathens, but what in after times, amongst Christian Authors, Ancient and Modern. None whereof (I dare confidently affirm it) take the word in a good sense, or use it any otherwise, then for to signify a vice, contrary to Religion in the excess; as shall appear anon. 
●ee his 46. and 47 s. of Superst.  But he says, [I no where grant excessive fear of the Deity, to be another kind of Superstition, among the Heathens.] It's proved above, that Slavish fear of the Deity, is an excess in Religion, and that's Superstition in the Schoolmans' definition. And I ask whether that Fear of God which the Epicureans would have dispatched out of the world, was not that cowardly, trembling fear, dreading the Gods, as so many Tyrants, etc. if so, the Doctor may [go herd himself among the Epicureans, with the famishing prodigal] which scornfully he puts upon me. For I do not believe the Doctor will allow such a fear in men's hearts or in the world: If it was not such a Slavish fear, but a just and moderate fear of punishment for sin, I have pleaded for it, as much as he: But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I said, did not signify at first, or in the proper notation, the worshipping of Daemons, but a slavish fear of the Deity; 
p. 58. n. 3.  dreading the Gods as so many Tyrants, etc. An irrational fear of the Gods, as he speaks; wishing there were no God; as Plutarch hath it. But this was spoken to, above, at large: and proved to be an excess, and superstitious.  
He charges me here again for extending Superstition to all the four Commandments of the first Table; 
p. 57 n. 7.  [when I know Aquinas made it a breach peculiar to the first Commandment.] In the Doctor's gloss, he does, but in no man's else. For Aquinas makes one and the first Species of Superstition to be, when Worship is given cui non debet, that is, to the Creature; and that is, referred to the first Commandment, God alone is to be worshipped. The second is prout non debet, in an undue manner; which may extend either to the matter of Worship, when not prescribed by himself: which the Doctor calls, p. 59 n. 3. [The giving of false. Worship to the true God:] which is specially reduced to the second Commandment: or to the gesture of Worship, performed in an unreverent manner, which is refered to the third Commandment. The third (with him) is, quando non debet; in regard to the unseasonableness of the time; which he exemplifies, by worshipping God now after the Jewish manner, with Circumcision, Sacrifices, etc. But these belong rather to the matter of instituted Worship, and were reduced to the second Commandment. The quando non debet, should rather have reference to the Sabbath, and Festivals, abolished by Christ, or now made parts of Worship by men, with respect to the fourth commandment. But this Aquinas durst not meddle with, not daring to touch the Romish Superstitions, in this particular of Festivals: And if he had done so, he had made Superstition a breach of all the four Commandments, of the first Table, as I have done: and I think, most reasonably and justly. Let others judge.  
What he says, in the following numbers of this Section, is a mere contention of words, and sufficiently answered above; as also what is found in the third, and fourth, except this Concession be taken notice of; 
p. 59 n. 3.  [Though Superstition be the giving of false Worship to the true God, as well as Worship to false Gods, Daemons, etc. (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, etc.] Observe here, first, He grants a Superstition, [in giving of false Worship, to the true God;] But this he never took notice of, in his Tract of Superstition, but carried his Reader away with his old notion of Superstitum cultus: Now it concerned him, a Christian and a Divine, to have spoken of the other notion of Superstition, as it gives false Worship to the true God; which why he waved, let him now consider. 2. He yet excuses it; [This false Worship yet, is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worship, for certainly all such, is not false.] Certainly? Then are not only all our Divines, but the Doctor himself also, 
See p. 12. n. 13.  much deceived; who hath often granted, that uncommanded Worship is unlawful, and so false: and then certainly, all false Worship is uncommanded: unless he will say, some false Worship is commanded, or not forbidden; which sure his learning will not suffer him to say. If only commanded Worship be true, and only true Worship be commanded, than all uncommanded Worship, is false, and all false Worship, uncommanded, yea, forbidden. 3. He speaks of [a dread, which is not Worship, to the true God.] But first, Is not a dread of the true God, Worship, in the first Commandment? how then can he say it is not Worship? 2. Or does he mean it, a cowardly, trembling, desperate fear of the true God, counting him as a Tyrant, (which I called slavish fear and excessive) is not Worship? This is true in a sense; it is not true Worship or accepted, but yet it is a kind of Worship, though false. 4. What he adds, with an 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.] But this is a special calumny, (as he uses to phrase it) for this Diatribist hath oft professed the contrary, as this Doctor hath confessed more than once. And himself rather extends the word Worship, farther than I do; for even here, he (closely) insinuates, a distinction of Worship, whiles he talks of, Substantial parts of Worship: that is, Substantial Worship: which may imply, there is some Accidental or Circumstantial Worship, in those Rites and Observances, he speaks of, which as they are no Worship, (or if made Worship, are confessedly unlawful) so the Doctor, durst never yet call them Worship, though his practice makes them worship, and his Tract of Will-worship, defends such kind of Worship; as will appear in due time. One thing more, and I have done, with this Section: He says, 
p. 60. n. 4.  [The second Commandment, is spent upon the Worship of Idols (all for the interdicting of that) and cannot be properly said to consider the Worship of the true God, unless it be the external part, that of bowing down, etc.] Indeed in the Doctor's Gloss, that's all, the interdicting of Idolworship: but I hope those two learned Catechists, will teach him otherwise, cited above, ad p. 43. n. 4. That the scope of that Commandment, is to forbid all unprescribed Worship; and to command the observance only of Commanded Worship; which is more than that of bowing down, etc.   

Section, 19 But he adds, Sect. 11. when Paul tells the Athenians, Acts 17.22. They were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
ALl that he says to this Section of mine, is not much material to the main question between us, and indeed, a mere strife about words: what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies in that place, the Vulg. Lat. reads it Superstitiosiores, and ours, too Superstitious; The Doctor will have it signify, [only their worshipping of a multitude of Gods, 
n. 2, 3.  moe than any other nation did: and the unknown God for one, as being more Pious, etc.] And for this last, that they were the most Pious, amongst Heathens, he adds three Testimonies more, 
You cannot Worship the one God if ye impart and lavish out that incommunicable privilege to any other: So he said pag. 26. numb. 18. Yet now, none so Pious as these Athenians.  to what was said before: But I pray was not their worshipping a multitude of Gods, Superstition bad enough? when one false God, had been too much: And when they worshipped more Gods than others, were they not more superstitious, too superstitious? Nay let them take in the true, but unknown God also, and does not that still add to their Superstition, that they joined with him so many base and abominable Rivals? Nay, if they had worshipped the true and known God, and that alone, but not with Worship by him prescribed, had they deserved the name of Pious, or more pious? had they not been superstitious, in giving false Worshp to the true God? It's confessed in the last Section. Yet the Doctor here, calls it, a Pious Ethnic devotion: another contradiction, in adjecto, without a distinction. They worshipped they knew not what, nor whom, and they knew not how, with an Altar, and Sacrifices, which God never commanded, yea, forbade; and yet Pious, devout men, with the Doctor. And he says, the word here is [taken in a good, not ill sense, not of any uncommanded Worship of the true God, but a Pious, though Ethnic devotion, toward the multitude of their false, supperadded to the one true God.] Or rather towards the one true God, (unknown) superadded to the multitude of their false Gods; It's like, he came in, after all the rest, so Pious they were: will the devout Doctor call this Piety? yes, with an extenuation; 
p. 61.  [which Pious Ethnic devotion, though in a Christian scale, or judgement it cannot be approved, because it is Polytheisme, yet in comparison with other Heathens, etc.] Is that all the Crime? was it not, the best of it, false worship of the true God? and is that worthy the name of Piety, accompanied also with Polytheisme? I wonder not now, that some men, commend the Devotions, and Moral virtues of Heathens, as good, and pleasing to God, and preparations to grace, etc. when the Doctor makes this grossest Impiety, a great measure of Devotion. Their neighbour nations (he says) [were not guilty of so much devotion.] If he speak it seriously, he still applauds their Piety; If he mean it, in an improper sense (as I believe he does) they were not so devout, as the Athenians; he might better have taken it properly, they were not guilty of so much Impiety and Superstition, because they worshipped fewer false Gods, and perhaps did not bring in the true God, as a rival, amongst them: But that the Doctor should say, [It was Paul's business, to compare them with other Heathens, and looked upon it truly, as a greater measure of devotion, than the other 
* Just as Papists may be said to be more Pious and devout, than the Protestants, because they Worship many Saints and Angels with the true God.  Heathens had,] is a strange gloss of the text; For by all Circumstances, Paul looked on it, as an aggravation of their Impiety, and grosser Superstition, rather than Pious Devotion; It's said verse 16. [His Spirit was stirred in him, (with grief and indignation, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, irritabatur;) [when he saw the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, full of Idols, or wholly given to Idolatry.] And no doubt, his scope was to work them to repentance, which would rather be done by aggravating their sin, then by way of Comparison, to applaud them, as more Pious and Devout, than other nations. They had more Idols, and so more Idolatry than others, in joining many rivals with the true God, when one had been too much: and besides, worshipped that true God ignorantly, verse 23. and in a manner by himself forbidden. Let others judge.   

Section 20. What Festus meant by, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts. 25.19. is not much material, it's like he spoke it with scorn enough, etc.  
THe three questions here between us, are not much worth debating; being but about the sense of some few words. 
p. 62. n. 3.  1. Whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be here taken in an ill sense, by Festus: It seems to me and many others, to be taken in an ill sense; if the Doctor will needs think otherwise, let him enjoy his own opinion. The very Heathens (and such was Festus) branded Religion, which they did not like, by the Name of Superstition; surely, that was, in opposition to Religion, their own at least, which they thought to be the truest. 2. 
p. 63. n. 5  The next is of those words (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) which may be taken two ways; either, his, or theirs; Paul's only, or the Jews also: The Doctor is for the former, and renders the words, his Superstition: and something being said to it, in this Section, he takes no notice of it, (unless it be, to say, I give no reason of what I say) I shall therefore produce my reason there, and add another strength to it: I said, from a parallel Scripture, Acts 23.29. Paul was accused of questions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of their Law, not of Paul's own Religion: To which I now add a second, Acts 18, 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a question of your Law; said Gallio, one of Festus his rank. Let's see if his reason be better, than these two Scriptures, joined with that, c. 25, 19 Thus he gives it, [The Jews accusation against Paul, is plainly mentioned in this place.] Well, so it is, 
p. 63. n. 6.  in the other two places; what then? [How then, could their own Superstition be the matter of their charge against him?] I could blush, or pity such argumentation; Apply it to the other Texts afore, Acts 18.15. [If it be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] That is (as the Doctor laboured to prove, numb. 5.) [An accusation, or question— of your Law.] Ask now, how could their own Law, 
See Acts 21.28. Teaches against the people, and against the Law.  be the matter of their charge against him? I forbear the other place: And I add, (if it were worth the while) the context carries it to my sense; Those words, were spoken to Agrippa concerning Paul's case; [Against whom, when the Accusers stood up, they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him, of their own Superstition,] their own Law; the words afore immediately, being spoken of them, not of him; And if he should say, but one part of the accusation was, about one Jesus, which was dead, etc. and so of Paul's Religion; the answer will be, that this is a distinct accusation from the former; and so will conclude, it was, of theirs, as well as his: The former may include his, but his will not imply theirs. But too much of this. 
n. 7.  The 3. is, [Whether, Festus put Jesus, under the notion of a Daemon, or dead Heros.] My exception to it was, [That Paul affirmed him to be alive not in part, as those departed Daemons were supposed, but in the whole man, as raised from the dead.] The Doctor makes a little retreat, as if he would yield to my reason; [I shall not, because I need not, make it a matter of controversy with any.] But it was, but to come on again with more force: [Yet I had this consideration, to incline me to it, the immediate subjoyning of One Jesus, whom Paul contended to live; to be Superstes, etc.] But in citing these words, he should have looked to the other words, 1. One Jesus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was, or had been dead, so the word signifies, (says he, numb. 8.) Whom Paul affirmed to be alive, or live again; as the words together, do import. As for his other additions, they are not to the purpose; but conjectures of his own, and I list not to follow him.  
But if he yield in the least, to have mistaken, he will recriminate, and throw dirt in his Adversaries face; 
p. 64 n. 8.  [That in this one proof, I have, strained more, than he, in his Criticism.] Wherein will that appear. [1. When I read the text, they had many questions, when the word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some.] But sure that's no strain; For verse 7. I found, they laid many complaints against Paul; and in the text, there were three at least, two concerning their own Superstition, the word is plural, and another concerning one Jesus, etc. Et tria sunt omnia: we may say, many of three: 2. [That I read, both, and also; when no such thing in the Greek, or English.] But I pray, if those be distinct questions, of their Superstition, and of one Jesus, as the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning, twice repeated, 
He leaves out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 8. Is this fair.  does fairly suggest; may not an Interpreter (so was I there) say, questions both concerning their own Superstition, and also concerning one Jesus, etc. 3. The third is long, and I know not well how to contract it: I said, Paul was accused of Sedition, seducement, profanation of the Temple, etc. he returns, [Paul had cleared himself from those: and so in Festus Judgement, Paul was not guilty of any thing, but only of his own Religion, and one Jesus: by way of explication, (and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) being exegetical, etc.] But 1. what though Paul had answered some of those charges (being innocent in all) yet might not Festus tell Agrippa, they had many questions against him? as verse 7. it is said. 2. That Paul was not charged with any thing, but his own Superstition, and one Jesus, is a mere begging the question. 3. So is the next that, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And) is here exegetical: which is proved false by the double, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning; noted before, which would have been but once, had, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, been exegetical. And which is worse, the accusation had not been in the plural, not some questions, but a question, concerning one Jesus. I wish the Doctor did not here strain his wits against the light: having said at first he would not make it a controversy with any: At last, he comes of with a Charientismus: [If all were granted, 
p. 65. n. 10.  that I desire, that the Superstition spoken of was not Saint Paul's, but the Jews; then be will say, it shall signisie the Jews Religion simply, without any Character of ill, or good laid upon it.] And why did he not save all this long vitiligation, by saying so much at first, and himself and me all this trouble? Yet I hope it may do good, one way or other, and then no cause to repent.   

Section 21. What Epicurus doctrine was, or what Heathens thought of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are not much solicitous, etc.  
THat the Doctor's intention was, (in his large discourse, out of Heathens, concerning the word, 
p. 66. n. 1. etc.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) [To lead us away in a mist, from the true and proper sense of the word amongst Christians,] may probably be conceived by these things. 1. That having acknowledged the word Superstition, to be capable to signify, [the giving of false Worship to the true God, pag. 59 n. 3. as well as Worship to false Gods;] In all his discourse of Superstition afore, and his vindication now, he never exemplifies any Species of the former, amongst Christians. 2. Nay professes, [That he believes, there is only one Special kind of Superstition, whereof any Protestants are guilty, except that, of making observations of ominous things, &.] Surely, the Worship of Daemons, cannot well be charged upon any Protestants (though upon Papists.) Nor are there many Protestants, [that dogmatise, or impose as necessary such things, as the Law of Christ hath not made necessary.] And so it will be very hard to find a Superstitious Protestant; which was the design of the Doctor, when he took upon him, to vindicate the Church of England and himself, from the guilt of Superstition. But if there be one kind of Superstition to Worship the true God, prout non debet, in a manner which he might not, as Aquinas; or with false Worship, as the Doctor says, surely many Protestants, (and the Doctor for one) will be found guilty of more Superstition, than he is willing yet to acknowledge: and so he may keep his wit to himself, numb. 2.  
That the Heathens took the word sometimes in an ill sense, he cannot deny, but says, 
p. 67. n. 5.  [So they did Religion too.] That's rather to my advantage; but I let it pass, taking his confession: I therefore did appeal to Christian Authors, and amongst them, I believe, it will trouble the Doctor for all his great reading, to find one Greek Author, that ever used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a good sense, for true Religion; or any Latin Author (excepting but some Papists) that ever used Superstitio in a good sense, for true Religion: some Etymologists, and Glossaries that speak of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have an eye to the sense of it amongst Heathens, who took the thing in a good sense; but profess, that Christians take the word and thing, in an ill sense. The rest of this Chapter is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so I pass it by.   

Section 22. From that large discourse, about the word, at last, Section, 27. the Doctor comes to apply it, to his purpose, etc.  
FOr my leaping from this 14. to the 27. s. it was, 
p. 70, n. 1.  because there was no matter of controversy in them, nothing but what I yielded to be the Heathens sense of the word: But that being granted, the subsequent conclusions are not firmly founded upon those premises; if the Doctor will but take in the sense of Christian Authors also (as he ought) when they speak as Christians. Amongst them, Superstition, is generally taken in an ill sense; yea sometimes also amongst Heathens, Superstition is opposed or contradistinguished to Religion; and consequently taken by them in an ill sense. I shall make this manifest, when I have only made bold to ask the Doctor one question, why he never gives us their words, when they speak ill of it; but sets the best face upon the word, when he knows, the thing meant by it, is so bad 
* Not only signifying Worship of Daemons, but false Worship to the true God, which here he waves, n. 2  and abominable. What chaste man, would take pains to paint a filthy strumpet? Does Superstition deserve so much from the Doctor, to hid, rather than to acknowledge her deformity? but I forbear; and now shall show him and his Reader, what he could have said, out of some Heathens, and many Christian Authors, for the word Superstitio, if he had been pleased to disgrace it. As,  
1. From the Heathen Orator, the master of Roman Eloquence, and well skilled in their Antiquities; who hath these words, (noted, no doubt, in the Doctor's Common-place book) distinguishing Superstition from Religion; 
Lib. 2. the nat. Deorum.  Non enim Phisophi solùm, verùm etiam Majores nostri, Superstitionem à Religionem seperaverunt, etc. And by and by after, Ita factum est, in superstitioso, & religioso, alterum vitii nomen, alterum laudis. And in another place; 
Lib. 2. de Divinat. ad f.  Nec verò (id enim diligenter intelligi volo) superstitione sublata, Religio tollitur.  
2. From that learned Philosopher, and Moralist, Seneca; whose words are these: Superstitio error insanus est, amandos timet, quos colit, probat. Quid enim interest, 
Epist. 1 24.  utrum Deos neges, an infames? that is, by dreading them, as so many cruel Tyrants; as the Doctor expressed it, from others: But these sentences of Seneca, were not then produced, yet are now set in his Margin, pag. 28. As a testimony against himself.  
3. From Plutarch (a Greek Author) who not only distinguishes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Superstition from Religion, but also makes it a vice contrary to Religion, in the excesss: Some of his words to this purpose, were cited above, ad p. 47. n. 20 But Plutarch writ a whole book of Superstition, which the Doctor cited once or twice in his Tract. of Superst. But to hid the ugliness of Superstition, in that Heathens Judgement, tells us only this, s. 18. [It goes indefinitely for Religion, but particularly for some fearful apprehensions of the Gods.] (Therefore not only for Superstitum cultus.) But this is a palpable disguise of Plutarch's notion of it, as any that read that Tract, will quickly discover. For 1. From the beginning, he opposes Superstition to Atheism, as the two extremes of Religion: one in the excess, the other in the defect: for so he says; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I wonder at those that say, Atheism is irreligion, and say not the same of Superstition: 2. He describes the superstitious person, with such black Characters, that no man can well speak for it; such as these beside others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. [It must needs be, that the Superstitious person both hate and fear the Gods,] 
* In the 2. Commandment they that Worship the true God, with any but his own prescribed Worship, (which is Superstition) are said to hate him.  And a little after; [Hating and fearing the Gods, he is an enemy: 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. There is nothing of Superstition in an Atheist; but the superstitious is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Atheist by choice. 4. To omit much more there spoken, he concludes as he began, but more plainly; making Atheism and Superstition the two Extremes, and placing true Religion in the midst: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. [Many flying Superstition, fall into Atheism, passing over Religion lying in the midst.] Did not the Doctor know all this? shall a Christian, a Divine, Learned and Pious, defend or palliate that, which an Heathen so condemns? see what he says for it, Infra ad p. 72. n. 7, 9 etc.  
4. 
De Oratione.  From Tertullian, one of our ancientest Latin Christian Authors; who speaks fully the Language of our Reformed Divines; Siquidem quae sine ullius, aut Dominici, aut Apostolici praeceptae authoritate fiunt, ea non Religioni, sed Superstitioni deputantur, affectata, & coacta, & curiosi potius, quam rationalis officii: Where he gives an example of such Superstition. There were in the Church at that time, certain, that contrary to the custom of the Church, would 
* Sure this was not Superstitum cultus.  put off their cloaks, when they went to prayer, placing some Religion in that Ceremony; (as Heathens used to do) to whom he answers, Quod utique si fieri oporteret, Apostoli qui, quae de habitu orandi docent, comprehendissent; And comes off with an elegant Charientismus, Nisi, sequi putant Paulum, penulam suam, 
Adu. Marci. l. 1. c. 5.  in oratione penes Carpum reliquisse. And the Doctor himself, hath cited another like place out of Tertullian, p. 16. n. 28. to put a difference between Superstition and Religion, speaking of worshipping of two Gods; Vererer nè abundantja officit, Superstitio potius, quam Religio crederetur. Where abundantia officii, may well signify an excess in Religion.  
5. From Lactantius; who, (in the place cited above, upon another occasion) though he approve not the notation Superstition, nor yet of Religion, given by Cicero, à Relegendo; yet clearly put's the difference, between Religion and Superstition; Quid ergo est? Nimirum Religio, veri cultus; Superstitio falsi— Religiosos se putant, cum sint Superstitiosi.  
6. From Saint Austin, cited by Aquinas (as the Doctor recites it, p. 16.) Cecidit bestia Superstitionis, [The beast of Superstition is destroyed, by the first Commandment of the Decalogue, prescribing the Worship of one God:] 
Tract of Superst. s. 13.  He would not surely call that by the name of Religion: And Austin is affirmed to say, Deum à Religioso vereri, à Superstioso timeri: and consequently to that (adds the Doctor) Religio Deum colit, Superstitio violate: [as Max. Tyrius, compared a Pious man, to a friend; a Superstitious, to a flatterer: the Pious man comes to God, without fear, the Superstitious man with much fear.] This, beside much more that might be produced out of Saint Austin, is enough to show, Austin took Superstition for a vice contrary to Religion.  
7. From the great School-man (and all his followers, in the Romish School) whose definition of Superstition, we have so often heard, clearly differences Superstition from Religion; [It is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess:] making, worshipping of Creatures, to be but one Species of it; and Illegimate-worship in general, to be the other, which also hath several Species under it, as we have showed. Before him, the Gloss. Interlin. gave this, Superstitio est Religio supra modum servata, on Col. 2. Which what is it, but Religion (so called) in the excess?  
8. From all our Reformed Divines, Foreign and Domestic, who all generally take Superstition in an ill sense, as an addition to, or excess of Religion; and never in a good sense; All this, and much more, the Doctor knew well enough; and yet shakes them all off, [as of so small authority, that scarce worth producing,] as we shall hear anon.  
But perhaps the Doctor will say, 
p. 71. n. 4.  [He never imagined, Superstition truly so called, to have no ill in it:] But what does he truly call Superstition? nothing willingly, but, worshipping of Daemons: Hear what he says; 
See n. 7.  [The thing which I contest, is not this, that the Worship of Daemons, is, or ever was true or lawful; but that beside this (adding the like of illegitimate Worship) there is nothing else, 
n. 9  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.] But first, does he not say, Illegitimate-worship is looked upon as simply bad, as well as Worship of Daemons? what difference is there between Vncommanded Worship, and Illegitimate? Does not Illegitimate signify Unlawful Worship? and is not Uncommanded Worship also unlawful? His meaning is, (as afore) that Illegitimate signifies that which is forbidden by Law, which is more, then Vncommanded: No, it's the very same; for what Worship soever, is not commanded, is forbidden. 2. If this be all the contest with me, and such as I am; the controversy will soon be at an end: For I mean by Vncommanded Worship, nothing but forbidden Worship, and that the Doctor hath granted, or cannot deny, to be an excess, super statutum, an addition, and simply bad and unlawful. I shall therefore accept of his condition offered, and invert his own words; [Never to apply the word any otherwise, 
n. 5.  than the Scripture and Christian writers do, for Daemon Worship, or undue, Illegitimate Worship; upon condition, that he will grant, that in that sense, the word signifies an excess in Religion, in any part of Uncommanded Worship.] I say Vncommanded Worship, not Uncommanded Circumstances, or Rites (unless made parts of Worship.) The contest not being at all, of the latter: as is confessed.  
Yet renounced again in the following words: 
p. 37. n. 10.  [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 (of Worship) not commanded by God, may be perfectly lawful, and that is the only question between us.] Is not here, first, a contradiction to that he said before; that the only matter of contest was, of excess, 
n. 9  as that signifies Vncommanded Worship? now it is only of Ceremonies, etc. not commanded by God. 2. Is not here a second contradiction, that he defends not False Worship to be good, and yet defends Vncommanded Worship, which is False Worship? And 3. Is it not a third contradiction to say, that I elsewhere set the question of excessive, as that signifies Uncommanded False Worship, and yet to say, I must set it, as it signifies Ceremonies, or Circumstances, etc. not commanded, which he confesses oft, I do disclaim? Here are as many mistakes, as well could be in so few words. The rest concerning, Acts 25.19. & 17.23. have sufficiently been spoken to before, and I pass it by.  
Only one thing must be taken notice of, and explained, to rectify the Doctor's understanding of those words, of mine; 
p. 76. n. 20.  [Supérstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more than in the comparative;] which says he, are not very intelligible, to him at least. But the fault was none of mine, but the Printers, for want of a Comma after excess; then the sense is clear thus: 
n. 21.  Superstitiosus in the positive signifies excess, more then, (that is much more then) in the comparative, (which exceeds the positive) Superstitiosiores (given for the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Vulg. Lat. and others) must signify an excess. So much of that Section.   

Section 23, 24. The second Inconsequence he says, is this, [That the use of Ceremonies or Rites in the Worship of God, if not distinctly prescribed, etc.]  
THis I said, I believed was a mistake, but rather thus, That what Rite, etc. is made a part of Worship, etc. is superstitious. Now says he; [This is brief, 
p. 77. n. 1.  but very considerable; and might well make an end of this debate, between the Diatribist and me. 'Tis the yielding me the whole cause, and I have no more to contend for, but only peace.] 
n. 3.  But then, why did he say just now, [The question must be set not of Vncommanded Worship, but of Ceremonies, etc.] And he being certified of this my sense, long ago, why hath he contended thus long about nothing, to violate that pretended peace? Do I, or any of our Divines, say, that Vncommanded Rites, etc. are superstitious, unless they be made parts of Worship? etc. Yes, he would persuade me, that I know some, [who condemn uncommanded Rites as superstitious, 
p. 77. n. 2.  because super statutum, such as kneeling at the Eucharist, Cross in Baptism, etc.] Truly I can safely profess I know none that do condemn those as superstitious, but that they conceived them, to be made (by some) parts of Worship. He should have done well, to name some of them. That he will by and by, but first, he asks, [Why then did he undertake the confutation of the Tract of Superstition, which, he must know, intended no more than this, etc.] But I believe, he intended more than this, in that Tract, viz. to plead secretly for some Vncommanded Worship; which he newly made the only matter of contest between us. Yet if he will needs know the reasons of my undertaking that Tract; these they were. 1. To vindicate the truth, from his interpolutions, and obscurations, in Thesi, of the full sense of the word Superstition. 2. Because I saw, he pleaded for Vncommanded Worship, as well as Circumstances, etc. 3. Because in Hypothesi, I saw, he makes some of his Rites, etc. parts of Worship; as his Festival in particular; which yet elsewhere, he calls but a Circumstance of Worship: These were some of my reasons; if I have any more, he shall hear them anon.  
But though I know none, that condemn Vncommanded Rites or Ceremonies as superstitious, etc. yet he may know some; 
p. 78. n. 5.  [Who have abstained from the use of some Ceremonies, merely upon this score, because commanded by their Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors.] I fear this is (as he calls such charges) a calumny; They were conscientious godly men, and gave all due Honour and obedience to their Superiors, in all Indifferent things; and that they should abstain from some Ceremonies, merely upon this score, because Commanded, etc. is to me incredible. They might, and did abstain from some Ceremonies, as too many, and burdensome, but especially as they esteemed them to be made parts of Worship; which they have I think, proved some of them to be. The Doctor himself condemns the number and burdensomeness of them, and as made new sorts of Worship: and so they are agreed; and pity it is, he and they should fall out again: But he will break the peace, what ever it cost him; [Instead of naming those men, without their consent, for that must now be the vilifying them, etc. as not understanding Christians, in the Diatribist censure; he will name one, upon whom he may pass what judgement he please; the Diatribist himself, p. 31. Where, first, he hath these words, If men may judge what are fit for number, and wholesomeness, every after-comer, may think himself as wise as he that went before, till they have loaded the Christian above the Jew. 2. That the Learned Chamier, etc.] How will he hence prove his calumny, against me and learned Chamier? (glad I am, of so good company) Why thus: [If the objection be, because men are Judges of the number, etc. as they are, when they command, than they that abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies upon this score, most abstain because commanded by lawful Authority.] Oh, the Doctor's conscience! Do any men abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies? it is, from Uncommanded Worship, at least as they suppose. He hath therefore varied the question; And if he had but looked back to the former page of mine, p. 29. he had found that, which might have silenced all this vain and false discourse. There I say; [If men or any number of men, may be competent Judges in the Worship of God; (in the Worship, not in the Circumstances of Worship) will not the wisdom and wit of man expatiate here, and grow wanton?] But if we extend it to his Ceremonies; are not my words every way true? Does not long experience of all ages, make it evident, that the Wisdom and Wit of men hath herein grown wanton? Let the Church of Rome be the instance; have not they loaded the Christian above the Jew? and the 
* See p. 38.  Greek Church, as much? And I retort it upon the Doctor. If the Judges of Ceremonies for number and wholesomeness, have such large unquestionable Authority, [to appoint what Ceremonies, they shall judge most useful, most for edification, and most agreeable to the analogy of faith.] (As he asserts, they have, of Fest. s. 9) Then, the Judges of the next age, having the very same power, with their predecessors, may add as many more, (and the next after them as many more) as they shall think useful to those ends; till they have made the number great, and burden intolerable. This consequence is unavoidable, upon his Antecedent. It therefore concerns him (as well as me) to expedite himself out of this snare: How shall this be done, to free us both? I conceive one of these ways; 1. That the power of the Church reaches only to Circumstances of Worship, respecting Order, and Decency; and then, as any Wiseman can easily determine them, by the Light of Reason, as Time, Place, Gesture in Worship; so they will be very Few, and cannot well be Multiplied, being the same or like, in all ages of the Church. And this I think, is most suitable to the Simplicity of Gospel Worship. 2. Or else, that if the Church take upon her, to appoint new Ceremonies, above what the Scripture holds out, she makes them parts of Worship; (as the Church of Rome, does all her Ceremonies, and some did some of ours) which is unlawful. And this was the opinion of those who abstained from our Ceremonies, that they were made parts of Worship, and therefore unlawful. These things satisfy me; If they do not please the Doctor, let him take his own way to expedite himself. Sure if he were but constant to himself, and did not confound Circumstances and Ceremonies, putting one for another, as if they were the same; he might remember, what he said afore; [That some Rites and Circumstances of time, place and gesture, are absolutely necessary to Religion;] That was his conclusion. pag. 7. n. 5. If then he means by Rites and Ceremonies, nothing but such Circumstances of Worship; we grant the Church, to be Judge of them: But if he take Ceremonies, for more than Circumstances, new Rites of Worship, or new kinds of Worship (as sometimes he does.) I could easily name the man, that is superstitious, in defending and practising uncommanded Worship, but shall reserve that, till a fit time. I shall now meet the Doctor, 
p. 79. n. 6.  at his own weapon, his own instance; [He supposes, howing when Jesus is named in the public Worship, (or when Christ, or the Holy Ghost) to be in itself lawful or indifferent; he supposes again, then, this and a few other such Ceremonies may safely be used by a man, without command: He now demands, may a few, three or four be commanded by Supreme Power? If they may, than men may be Judges, what Ceremonies are fit, for number and wholesomeness, which is contrary to the words of the Diatribist.] But I demand of him, if this be not a very Sophism? For first, will he say, bowing at the Name of Jesus, is a new Worship, or only a new Circumstance of Worship; if the latter, it's beside the question, and improperly called a Ceremony. 2. Will he say, that any thing, in itself Indifferent may be brought into the Worship of God? hath the Church such a power, to institute Ceremonies, of what is so indifferent? will not this make them quickly to be many, to be burdensome, and bring confusion into the Church? ergo, It's indifferent (he says) to bow, at the Name of Jesus, of Christ, of the Holy Ghost; may the Church of this age command men to bow in public, when, & as often as all these three are named? If so; the name of God, Jehovah, Lord, Almighty, and all his Attributes, are in themselves Indifferent to be bowed at, when they are named. May not the Church of this, or the next age, command her members to bow, when any or all these are named? what confusion would this breed? yet so she may, by the Doctors arguing. If she may not multiply Ceremonies of that kind, [than it seems (his words) what was before lawful and indifferent, is now since it was commanded, and by no other change, become unlawful:] Let him try, how he will escape.  
I had said, they abstained, because they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of Worship: 
p. 30. n. 8.  [These words are either a calumny against the Governors of the Church, or else they assert what he disclaims so solemnly.] Neither of these is true; 1. 
n. 9  Not a calumy against the the Church, [as if they thought the Ceremonies simply necessary, by Divine Law, though she had not commanded them.] This is none of my meaning (whatever some might think) but because the Refusers, thought they were so obtruded, or being obtruded, were by themselves thought to be not Indifferent, but parts of Worship. Suppose they did err, in so thinking; yet they did not abstain merely because they were commanded (which is the Doctor's calumny) by lawful Authority; they rather thought the Authority unlawful, that obtruded on them things perhaps indifferent, as parts of Worship. 2. Nor do I mean, that being in themselves indifferent, they became necessary, by the Church's command; and so made parts of Worship, as that may possibly signify parts of obedience, to Superiors, by God's command: For neither do I ever call that obedience to Superiors, in the second Table a part of Worship, nor ever say, that the Church's command, can truly make them so, and necessary: But I meant (as before) they that abstained, did it upon this ground, because they thought them to be made parts of Worship, and so not, upon his, because they were commanded by Superiors. 
n. 11.  And that I may take in the next; [because used and abused by Papists, and by them made parts of Worship:] It's evident that Papists do make all or most of their Ceremonies parts of Worship; Hear what favour he shows to Papists that he may lave himself from guilt: [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.] Cannot he say this of them, when he knows, they place the Worship of God in them? Are not their holidays made and accounted parts of Worship? Is not Caelibate, and vowed Virginity, Poverty, etc. made a part of Worship? Is not the cross in Baptism so esteemed by them? Truly if the Papists do not make those Ceremonies parts of Worship; our men (that have borrowed them from them) are the more to blame, who (what ever they say against it) do practically make and observe some of them as parts of Worship, well nigh as much, as those that were instituted by Christ, or his Apostles, as shall appear hereafter.  
Hence, the Doctor's Apology for himself, by miscensuring of me, is the more ; [That all his skill lies in managing that one fallacy; putting all Ceremonies and institutions of the Church, under that one ambiguous phrase of uncommanded Worship, persuading himself, or others, that we retroduce new parts of Worship.] I know no fallacy here at all; For that it is untrue, that I put all Ceremonies under that ambiguous phrase, appears, by my profession often, and one newly cited here; from my 28. sect. [Some Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, are rather called Circumstances of Worship, time, place, gesture, which are common Adjuncts of religious and civil affairs, than parts of Worship.] Where it's evident, both that I take Ceremonies only for Circumstances of Worship, and also oppose them, to parts of Worship. And the Doctor himself hath as fully and plainly professed against all Vncommanded Worship (such is all Will-devised, and false, imposed Worship) as I have done; I hope without Ambiguity. Let's hear what he asserts; 
p. 81. n. 12.  [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 of God, have yet been lawful, etc.] If this were all he said, we might well agree; But I fear the Doctor's skill lies in managing that one fallacy, under that one ambiguous phrase, of Vncommanded Worship. 
See ad p. 73. n. 10.  For he does allow of some Vncommanded Worship, (he calls it after, Will-worship, not commanded Worship) and makes it more acceptable, and rewardable, then Commanded Worship: as we shall hear in due place: And I shall conclude with his own words, [If he would really and in earnest clear himself, these debates were certainly concluded.]   

Sect. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. We acknowledge this assertion, that, [Superstition may and doth in some Authentic Writers, Sacred especially, signify a Nimiety, or Excess in Religion, etc.  
THere is nothing said to these Sections, 
p. 82. n. 1.  but what hath been said many times heretofore; and therefore I lightly pass them by. Only desiring the Reader, to take notice, that the Doctor having given three reasons against my Assertion, [That Superstition signifies an excess,] and I having spoken to them all, he replies not a word to them; but seems to yield all, and yet upon my Preface, denies, that ever he denied Superstition to be an excess; See ad p. 20. n. 2. His only evasion is, That those Divines condemn Superstition, but mean not by it, every excess in Worship not prescribed, as that comprehends all Ceremonies, and Festivals not commanded by God; and those are the men, he meant, when he said, [They are so few & modern, & of so small authority, that scarce worth producing.] But first, I am confident the Doctor cannot produce one modern Divine of note, that ever simply condemned all Ceremonies, and Festivals, etc. for themselves did observe some Ceremonies and Festivals, taking occasion to preach upon them, etc. they only condemned them as they were made parts of Worship, equally holy, with the Lords Day, etc. 2. I provoked the Doctor to give us the names of those many, Ancient, Authentic Fathers, etc. that take Superstition, in a good sense; He uses not to be so sparing, etc. and yet not one produced. Whereas I have given him many, that take it in an ill sense, 
p. 82. n. 2.  for excess in Religion. [All Divines 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.] But first, all Divines do condemn Superstition, for this reason, because it is an excess, or addition of Worship not prescribed, according to the Schoolmans' definition of it, before given; and therefore must necessarily mean it of every excess in Worship not prescribed. 2. If Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God, be made parts of Worship, by men, as they are by Papists and the Doctor himself, they mean by that phrase, to comprehend all Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God. And these Divines, are many, and of no small Authority; though the Doctor slights and contemns them. And I might ask the Doctor, Why is Daemonum cultus called Superstition, but because it is an excess in Worship; adding the Daemons or false Gods, to the object or Rule of Worship, in the first Commandment: Just so it is in all the other three Commandments, the Superstition in them is an excess, in the matter, manner, or time of Worship, not prescribed by God.   

Section 30. Of this kind are those three sort of significant Ceremonies, etc.  
I Expected here, 
n. 4. p. 83.  that the Doctor would have showed his opinion of significant Ceremonies, (not those mentioned by me and him, but) used in our Church, as Cross in Baptism, Surplice, etc. & have declared his Judgement, whether such significations put upon them by men, do not make them Religious Ceremonies, and so parts of Worship, and consequently superstitious: But he wisely waves the debate, and falls upon the observation of Decency, Uniformity, and Obedience to Superiors; which he must mean, of Circumstances of Worship, not of new sorts or kinds of Worship. No Obedience is due to Superiors, when they command such: But he as wisely lets go the rest; [when they are taught, as making the observers more Religious, than others, or more acceptable to God, etc.] I ask now, if a man should put Religion 
* That a man is heard, non said it.  in a gesture, in a place, etc. Or think that it will make quia precatur, sed quia ibi. He knows what B. him more acceptable to God: Whether this would not make them parts of Worship, and so superstitious? ergo, If a man should place more Religion, Holiness, acceptation, etc. in praying in a Church privately, in kneeling at the Supper, then in sitting or standing (all being left indifferent) let the Doctor say, whether this be Superstition, or no: I believe many of our Ignorant, and Formal Protestants do so, though the Doctor himself perhaps, will say, he looks only at the command of his Superiors, enjoining that gesture.   

Sect. 31.32. But herein the Doctor is again mistaken, that he says, etc.  
THe Doctor confesses, That [in the Church of Rome, 
p. 84. n. 6.  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.] As if he had said, the Church of England laid a weight and yoke upon her members, but not so great and heavy, as Rome lays upon hers: This is but little for her Commendation. 
Fatemur Ceremonias non esse nimis multiplicandas: Bellar. de effect. Sacr. c. 30.  But were not the Ceremonies in the Church of England, many in themselves, and compared with other Reformed Churches? Besides the old ones, of Cross in Baptism, Surplice, bowing as oft as Jesus was named, kneeling at Sacrament, etc. and all those many Holidays, (which some people found to be a heavy yoke:) the New ones that were, by some well affected to Rome, even near upon imposing; as bowings and cringings, at Church door, in the midst, and Chancel, and at the Altar, and what else, God knows: would not these be a reasonable number to deserve the name of a multitude? And then I would know, what number of Ceremonies will make a burden and a yoke; will 20. or 30. or more do it? and if under 10. will that be no yoke? let the Doctor state and settle his number. Then I ask again, why are 30. or 20. a yoke? is it because of their number? why then, 10. is number sufficient, to make a lesser yoke: But if the reason be, (as indeed it is) because they are but Traditions of men, 
Gal. 5.1.  prejudicious to Gospel simplicity, and to Christian liberty, where Christ hath left us free; then any one such Ceremony (I say not, necessary Circumstance) is a little yoke, 
Who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren? p. 111. n. 8. p. 85. n. 7.  and why should any Church assume a power, to yoke and burden those, whom Christ hath left free? And this was Chamiers reason against Bellarmine; though the Doctor thought good to take no notice of it, to give it any answer. He says, [I ask a subtle question; Whether if a Jew had observed some Jewish Ceremony, not foreshowing Christ to come, or had devised any new Rites or Ceremonies, etc. would not the Apostle have blamed them for that as superstitious?] He must remember, we are speaking of Ceremonies, made parts of Worship, (as those Jewish were before) what says he to the question? He answers confidently, to both the parts; [No, 
* Yet often hath said, that those rites of the old law, are forbidden under Christ. p. 19 n. 32. and just now, that they were interdicted Christians. p. 84. n. 5. n. 8.  he would not: and to the last first; in ask the question, I beg the question, which is (says he) whether every devised Rite or Ceremony, not commanded of God, be superstitious.] No such matter, the question is, of Vncommanded Worship, not of Circumstances of Worship; no nor of Rites and Ceremonies, if not made parts of Worship; And is it probable that the Apostle would cry down the old Ceremonies, appointed by God, and parts of Worship, and give them leave to set up new ones, of their own Head? To the former part of a Jews observing a Jewish Ceremony, etc. he answers as confidently, by a question; 
n. 8.  [What thinks be of the abstinence from strangled and blood, a Jewish Ceremony, and observed by Christians? yet not blamed as Superstitious.] I say this, first, as it was observed by Christians, so it was ordered by the Apostles, who might do more than any Jew or Christian. 2. It was not made now, a part of Worship (as before it was) but only to prevent a scandal to the weaker Jews: which is evident by this, besides other reasons, that after the Jews were better instructed or hardened, the custom ceased. And if the Doctor had a mind to plead for a Ceremony, he might better have pleaded for continuance of this, both for the Antiquity of it, before the Law, under the Law, and under the first plantation of the Gospel, observed by Christians, many ages, (says the Doctor) and also for the Authority of it, from the Apostles themselves. He cannot produce so much for his beloved Festival. His other instance of the old Sabbath, is just the same; [He hath the practice of the Christian Church, of the Apostles, and purest time, who continued the observation of it, with the Lords day, for some hundreds of years.] But I would say further, 1. The Apostles did not observe the Sabbath day, as now a part of Worship, as afore; but to take occasion to preach the Gospel, at their Assemblies, which they could not have on other days. 2. The following Churches, finding it in being amongst the Jews, continued it a while to gratify them. 3. If they continued it, as a part of worship, I would ask the Doctor whether they did well, or he would justify them, seeing it was before annulled, and interdicted (as he says.) 4. I must profess, there is much more to be said for the observation of the old Sabbath, by the Jewish Sabbatarians, than can be said for any of the Doctor's Festivals; the Antiquity of it, the Authority of it, the Apostolical practice, (says the Doctor) and the Church's observation of it for many ages) clearly manifested in stories. Whereas, the Festivals, (especially his darling Christmas) have no Apostolical Authority, or Practice, nor of the two first Ages of the Church, that can be made appear. I leave these to his consideration.  
The 32. Section of mine, 
p. 86. n. 9  he overlooks most of it, that most concerned him to have answered, about his number of wholesome Ceremonies; of the efficacy put in them by some, to procure grace, etc. and who shall be the Judge of their number and wholesomeness. All this is waved, but a flaw or fault is found in my words, which takes him wholly up: that I affirm him to say, [If Ceremonies be but harmless, or negatively wholesome, there cannot be too much of them.] Truly, he that reads the words in his 41. Section, might easily be mistaken, if he attend not heedfully to them: thus they are, [Ceremonies must be few and wholesome; yet if they be wholesome, not only negatively, but positively; not only harmless, but tending to edification, (for so salubrity imports) then there will be little reason, to accuse them of excess.] Would not a man at first sight take the meaning to be that which I have given? If they be wholesome, negatively, harmlessly, though not only so, but positively, and tending to edification, etc. especially if he eyed not the parenthesis following, which, all know, may be left out, and the sense be still entire. But I shall freely acknowledge my Inadvertency, and beg his pardon; I am sure he needs mine much more, in mislating of the question, so often (I say not, willingly) as if the controversy was only, [Whether every Rite or Circumstance, not commanded by God, be Superstition. n. 7.] when he knows, it is about Uncommanded Worship.   

Sect. 33. This question of a competent Judge, etc.  
THe Sophism charged upon me, 
n. 10.  will rather reflect upon himself: I said, what is Superstition but folly and vanity, in the Worship of God: In vain do they Worship me, etc. [This is (says he) a parologisme, supposing things to be convertible which are not: every Superstition is folly and vanity, but every folly and vanity even in the Worship of God, is not Superstition.] 
Duplex superstitio perniciosa, & vana seu superflua. Filuc. Trat. 24. c. 2. Foolish and vain Ceremonies or superstitious.  But that's the Doctor's mistake; I dare maintain, that every folly and vainty in the Worship of God, is Superstition: which I prove from the definition of Superstition: [Every excess in Religion, of men's devising, is folly, (as proceeding from man's Wisdom, which is folly with God) and vanity, as wanting ground of its performance; but every folly and vanity in Religion, of men's devising is an excess in Religion; ergo,] And from his own words, [In this case, (of too many Ceremonies) though any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault, yet this not the fault of Superstition, but of folly and vanity.] He was speaking of store of inordinable, unfit Ceremonies in the Church of Rome, are not they Superstitious? yet are they also foolish and vain. And when he says, [any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault,] how will he reconcile this with what he had said before: [If the excess be, in taking too many Rites and Ceremonies into the Worship of God, then (he hastily assumes this) by this it is granted, 
Any one Ceremony, if made a part of Worship, (as the word signifies) is a Nimiety and excess in Religion, and superstitious: not the multitude only, as was said above  the Rites and Ceremonies themselves are not Superstitious, but the multitude only.] But now he says, Any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault; Now that cannot be, if only the multitude of Ceremonies makes them superstitious; suppose ten Ceremonies, all singly indifferent and lawful; which of the ten is a Nimiety, and a fault? they are supposed all equally, good: or if the number only make them Superstitious, how can so many goods, added together, make them bad? either therefore there must be some Rule in Scripture, how many Ceremonies may be instituted, and yet not be superstitious, unless they exceed that number; or else the Adding of one, any one Ceremony, to the Rule, is a Nimiety, and faulty in Superstition. Let the Doctor resolve us in this case.   

Section 34. The placing of more virtue in some things, then either naturally, or by the Rule of the word, or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church, may be thought, etc.  
UPon this principle of the Doctor, I made an Assumption, not only of Romish Ceremonies, unfit, etc. but of all superadded parts of Worship, what ever, 
p. 87. n. 11.  [They do place more virtue in them, then either naturally belongs to them, or by the Rule of the word;] ergo, they are superstitious. This argument, the Doctor thinks best to wave; lest his Ceremonies, he pleads for, should be suspected, or concluded superstitious: because he places that virtue in them, which neither naturally, nor by the Rule of the word belongs to them, as hath been showed. All that he pleases to take notice of, is, to answer my question; [What he meant to add to his disjunction, or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church;] thereupon I asked, [Whether 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.] He answers, [I never thought any such thing.] Truly he that reads the words, where these three are put together, and knows the Doctor's  to the power of the Church, would easily take the meaning to be, as I have expressed it: [That the Church hath power to put some virtue into things, which neither nature, nor God hath put into them.] For he makes the Institutions of the Church, to be almost, if not altogether, Divine; her Authority, equal and the same with that of the Apostles, (confessed to be Divine;) and seems to join with, and approve of the phrases of Romanists; speaking of the power of the Church: I shall instance in some particulars: In this Section, where now we are, n. 4. he alleges a Testimony of Pope Leo; 
p. 83. n. 4.  Divinarum reverentia Sanctionum, etc. and renders it thus, [The reverence of Divine, i.e. Ecclesiastical Sanctions, hath always this privilege, etc.] We plain simple Protestants, would have thought, by Divine Sanctions, he had meant, the Institutions of Christ and his Apostles, which are truly Divine; but the Doctor understood the language of the Beast better than we do. [The Divine, that is, the Ecclesiastical Sanctions.] Again, when Aquinas was cited, as saying, [Worship is vitiated by Superfluity, 
Ad p. 50. n. 5.6.  when aught is assumed, which neither by Divine nor Ecclesiastical appointment belongs to the glory of God, etc.] He stops my mouth, with this; [That the Superfluity of it consists, not in being supperadded to Gods commands only, but to the Church's appointment also, etc.] Where he seems to me, to close with Aquinas, that the Church's appointments of Worship, are equal with Gods. And once more, (to take it in here, in this so fit a place, and pass it lightly hereafter) citing a testimony from Salmeron the Jesuit; Omnis ritus colendi Deum, etc. 
Infra ad p. 147. n. 24.  [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 superstitions.] Leave but out those words (by the Church) and Salmeron speaks as full for us, as we could desire. But does the Doctor boggle at those words? not at all, but thus besets me, [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 is free to make his best advantage of this citation.] What advantage I shall make of this, he shall hear anon; I make this only at present, that the Doctor will easily favour a Romish Gloss against the truth, and could find in his heart to believe with them, that the power of the Church is Divine. Some other such passages, we may meet again hereafter.   

Sect. 35.36. The Nimiety must be, an excess of fear, or being afraid of God, when we need not, etc.  
TO these 2. Sections, the Doctor says not one word, (but leaps to Sect. 37.) Where some things were needful to have been considered by him; I shall briefly remind him of them: First, 
p. 87. n  [An excess of fear, or being afraid of God when we need not, is granted a Nimiety, a culpable excess; this might be called Superstition under this notion of Nimiety.] They are his words, in his 46. and 47. Sections of Superstition. Now hence how justly have I inferred; 1. That Superstition is an excess. 2. That this is not the Worshipping of Daemons; then Superstition is larger, than he is willing to make it. 3. That a needless (which I call slavish) fear of God, is an excess, and Superstition, against the first Commandment. All which the Doctor hath laboured to deny; and is now confuted by his own pen. Another thing deserved his notice; That I say, Sect. 35. [In matter of Worship, it is a Nimiety and excess, to do what God hath not commanded:] To which he says just nothing. And then again, when he said; [That this way of dogmatizing, etc. is the special, and only kind of Superstition, which he believes any Protestants to be guilty of.] I said, this was a great mistake; for himself hath granted many more kinds of Superstition; as those newly named, placing virtue, in things, etc. An excess of fear, etc. and I may add, all men-devised Worship, new kinds and sorts of Worship appointed by men, etc. Happy were it for many Protestants, and for the Doctor himself, if either there were no Superstition, but worshipping of Daemons, amongst Christians, or none but Dogmatizing among Protestants: for then his Ceremonies and Festivals, might very well hope to escape. But besides all those named, there is yet another, and that is, in the next considered.   

Sect. 37, 38, 39 And now we are come to another consideration of the last way, that he supposes, may be called Superstition, that is, because men place Holiness in some observances, etc.  
HEre he said, [The only inquiry will be, by whom, and how far any thing is thus separated; by Christ, or the Apostles, etc.] To which I answered, [He tells us here, 
p. 87. n. 12.  by whom the separation is made; but not a word, how far, or in what difference, a thing separated is made holy, by the several Authors: whether, only gradual, or specifical, etc.] To which he returns not a word of answer: which yet is a thing of very great concernment: That we may know what degree, or kind of Holiness we put upon things; So himself said, [The way to discern, whether we exceed, and place more Holiness than is due to them, is to account them Holy, in a degree proportionable to the Authority of him that separated them.] This is a blind; we should know what is the degree of Holiness, proportionable to every one of their Authorities; else we may place as much Holiness, in the institutions of a private man, or a particular Church, as we should place only in those of Divine institution, by Christ and his Apostles. And so commonly men do; account the Church as Holy, as the Temple was: and Festivals as Holy, as the Lords day, and are not by the Doctor taught their due proportions. Many things were there propounded to his consideration, Sect. 39 which we cannot but take ill, to be slighted, as not concerning him to take notice of; first, whether any but God can make a thing properly Holy. 2. What proper Holiness is. 3. The diff●…ence of Holiness given by the different Au●… etc. and the rest there propounded. The Doctor waving all these, (for what reason, he best knows) catches at an advantage from some words of mine. I said, [In times or places separated by God or men, there is this difference, (besides others) that those sanctified by God, require holy duties to fill them up: but those by men, are to wait upon holy duties.] This, he says, (without consideration) is not so: [Prayer and Fasting, etc. were not appointed for time or places sake, etc.] He clearly mistakes me; for I meant thus: The Sabbath, and the Temple being made Holy by God, required Holy Services to fill them up: But times and places, set apart by men, have respect to the Worship of God; and are appointed for the Worship's sake, not the Worship, for the time and places sake: That's it that I said a little afore; men cannot make any thing properly Holy, but only improperly, with respect to Holy things or Duties. And that is, to make any time or place, when and where those duties are performed, as Holy as any other time or place, that is, the one no more Holy than another. But this Holiness, I doubt, will not serve the Doctor's turn; yet it must, if he be constant to his principles: For he professes not to make his time and place, (Festivals and Churches) parts of Worship, but circumstances only of Worship; which any Day, or place, is as well as his separated Days and places; and so one as Holy as another. 
p. 87. n. 13.  But to this he hath to say, [The time and place instituted by God himself, is as truly a circumstance of Worship, as when instituted by men; and duty is equally the Substance, &c] This is another of his mistakes; not that time and place instituted by God, are not as truly Circumstances, as those by men; but that they are more, even parts of Worship; so was the Sabbath and Temple: but so are not his Holidays, and our Churches. [Art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these things?] And now he may take home his 
* The Doctor uses the word (till) for, fill; the Printers fault; to give me a flout, and that twice.  Absurdity put upon me, to himself.  
I said, [I had thought Apostolical and Divine, had been both one with the Doctor, (and so they are sometimes) but I perceive he makes them differ, etc.] He answers, [It is soon dispatched, 
p. 88 n. 14.  by saying, I do not think the Apostles to be God.] Too soon dispatched indeed; Did ever any man charge him to think so, when he made Apostolical institutions to be Divine and infallible? Is not this a miserable subterfuge? when he knows well enough how to distinguish, between Immediately Divine, (so were Christ's own Institutions;) and mediately, 
The Scripture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Divine inspiration, or God inspired; yet writ by holy men, 2 Pet. 1.21  by commission from him, and Inspiration from the Holy Ghost; so were the Apostles, Divine. Why then did he speak thus? Sure it was, either to bring Apostolical down to Ecclesiastical, or to advance the latter, to the Authority of the former, and to make them equal. But is it not uncharitable for me thus to judge? No, not at all, knowing him so well as I do. For he says expressly hereafter, [His Festival and the Lords day are founded both on the same Authority.] Fest. 5.57. Then, either Ecclesiastical is Divine, for so is Apostolical; or Apostolical is but Humane, for so is Ecclesiastical; unless the Doctor will join with Papists, and make the Church's Sanctions to be Divine; as was said afore. But more of this hereafter.  
Yet before we part with this Section, one thing the Doctor is desired, in his next, to satisfy, how he will avoid that in the close; [By this distinction (aforegoing) of his, the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition, in placing Holiness in things, times, places; they may borrow the Doctor's answer; They may say, they account them Holy, but either by the authority of the general, or particular Church of Rome; and that is no Superstition, says he, say they.] Something would be said to this.   

Sect. 40, 41, 42. But he goes on: [If my voluntary oblation, I perform as a voluntary oblation, etc.]  
THese three Sections, the Doctor passes over, with an easy touch: because it touches too near upon his Will-worship; and therefore tells me, [I beg the question, 
p. 28. n. 15.  to take it for granted, that his voluntary oblation, is an eminent species of Superstition, against which punishment is denounced in the second Commandment; when his whole Tract of Will-worship, undertakes to demonstrate the contrary, etc.] I could answer for myself, that at my first draught, I placed his and my own Tract of Will-worship, before that of Superstition, (as he did) and so took it for granted, I had proved his Will-worship to be a Species of Superstition; But I say, the place is proper enough here, having in my discourse of Superstition, held out Will-worship to be a species of Superstition, by the Judgement of of the best Divines, though much more remains to be said of it. And I add further, that the Doctor hath yielded, Vncommanded Worship to be unlawful and superstitious: but his voluntary oblation, (Worship he means) is Uncommanded Worship: ergo, let him take heed of the punishment threatened to such Worship. Yet I shall say, I am not much troubled that he reserves this to the next Exercitation, if I were sure, he would look back to these three Sections, and answer them there: but this I fear, is but an avoidance of what he is not willing to answer. We shall observe his performance.   

Sect. 43. And now the Doctor may be pleased to review, and if he will, recall his bitter, false, uncharitable conclusion, etc.  
HOw the Doctor hath vindicated his Doctrine against me, the indifferent Reader, 
p. 89. n. 4.  must now be Judge, not we ourselves: It only remains, to see how he will vindicate his charity, in his bitter conclusion: which he goes about, first, by his Rhetoric, [craving to premise, that it was but a severe Satire, against a vice, and not a person, etc.] I shall with him, desire the judifferent Reader to review those two last Sections, and then give Judgement, whether he doth not even point at the persons, whom he means; not in particular, naming the men, but in a plain describing a party of men, known well enough to the nation: Thus he gins: [If some men, 
The opposers of the Ceremonies of our Church, against whom that tract was prepared. Infr. p. 114 n. 7.  as they will abide no Rites, so they would avow no quarrels but, etc.] Who knows not, that he means, those godly, learned, conscientious men, who opposed the Ceremonies of our Church: So he says expressly here, n. 5. [All that have opposed our Church, in point of Rites and Ceremonies, and branded the innocent as guilty of no less crime, than Superstition.] This part of the charge is false, for they could, and did abide some Rites, as we said above; and did avow no quarrels, but for what (they thought) Scripture would give them particular directions and commands: But he goes on, and worse; [And consequently, if they would not judge or damn their brethren, when neither Christ nor his Writ, etc. condemns them.] This is both false and uncharitable, to censure men, as judging and damning their brethren; when neither Christ nor his Writ condemned them: when as they were men of humble and meek Spirits, readier to be judged and condemned by their opposites, and patiently to suffer it. It follows [which till it be done, it must be expected, that they (afore described) who have learned one of the Devil's Attributes, that of Satan adversary, or enemy man, will also advance to another, that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, calumniator, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, accuser of the brethren, etc.] What could he have said worse, if he had called them Devils? Is there yet any more dregs in the bottom of the cup? yes, a little very charitable stuff. [It now, being by some men resolved (if the testimony of the rest of their lives may be believed) that there is no capital damning sin worth heeding or abstaining from, but Superstition, 
See p. 90. n. 5.  etc.] Now Reader, is this a Satire, of a vice, and not a description of persons, or a party? can the Doctor with perfect peace of mind review those Sections, and see no breach of duty, none against whom he hath offended? Non equidem in video, miror magis.  
Only one thing more, and we shall part a while; The Doctor says, [He can very well abstain from making use of the advantage given him, of more than recriminating.] And well he may; for he hath done it before; saying, [I have charged that foul sin of Superstition upon the Doctor personnally, and enlarged it to his party, which must needs involve all the obedient Sons of the Church of England, etc.] To which I answer, first, For the Doctor himself, I have charged him with nothing, but [what is avowed by himself, to be his opinion and practice, and what is proved really to be superstitious,] according to the true notion of the word, amongst reformed Orthodox Divines.] These are my words, in this last Section: which if it be not true, why did not the Doctor deny the charge, and make it appear, that his own principles do not hold out the nature of Superstition; & his own opinion and practice do not conclude him guilty of what is laid to his charge. This is very observable, that wherever I charge him to be superstitious, he moves it, and takes no notice of it, as will appear hereafter. 2. As for his party, he takes too much Honour to himself, to think I meant all the obedient Sons of the Church of England. No, there is a party in that party, that condemn the Doctor for his Superstition, as much as I do. But the party, that I joined with the Doctor, were those too forward Sons of the Church of England, who were (if God had not stayed them) running away from their Mother to Rome, both in Doctrine and Worship; and by all modest and pious men, even of Episcopal notion, judged as Hetordox in the one, and as Superstitious in the other. In a word, I shall make the Doctor to be his own Accuser, in the premises, and his own Judge, in the conclusion, of any charge I lay against him. And so I now rest.    

Exercitation. 2. Of Will-worship.  

Sect. 1. Had the Reverend and Learned Doctor (as it became him,) distinguished the words, either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Greek, or Will-worship in English, etc.  
HE now gins to do what before he had forgot, 
p. 93. n. 3.  or neglected; to distinguish, till he hath confounded the words, more than before, and yet not telling us clearly, in what sense he takes it, as he promised n. 2. First, [Betwixt Worship on the one side and on the other side, external Ceremonies or Circumstances of it, which are not parts, but accidents of Worship.] Where he does not distinguish of the word Worship, (as was required) in itself, that we might know, what he means by Worship, in the word Will-worship; but between Worship, and Ceremonies, or Circumstances of Worship, which are not parts, but accidents of Worship, as he says. And yet some Ceremonies and Circumstances are made by him, and called Worship, as we shall hear. 2. He distinguishes Worship indeed, after as confused a manner, when he says, [Worship, whether the Theological virtue, or some act thereof, together with the degrees, and frequency of those acts.] As if a man should distinguish Justice, (his present instance) thus, Justice is either, 1. The Moral virtue itself. 2. Or some act thereof. 3. Or some degree or frequency of that act. Were these several species of Justice, or not rather the same virtue distinguished by accidental differences? So the Acts of Worship, and the degrees thereof, etc. are either the same kind of Worship, or but accidental differences of the same Worship. 2. In his distinction of Worship, against Ceremonies and Circumstances, he is no less confused. For 1. Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship, are not one and the same, (which yet he seems to make them) as was said above. 2. Ceremonies and Circumstances, were sometimes parts of Worship (and so Worship Ceremonial) as the Sabbath, and Temple, time and place, after mentioned, in his Illustration, by Justice, etc. And Ceremonies however, are commonly taken for external Worship, (as I said above;) and then he should have distinguished Worship, thus: Worship is either Moral and Substantial, or Ceremonial and Accidental; and then his Ceremonies had been, not only parts, but species of Worship: And such indeed he makes them, however he dissemble the matter here. But who is the wiser by all this confusion? who can tell, for he tells us not) what is meant by Worship in the word, Will-worship: It must be, either the virtue or some act, or degree, or frequency of it, on the one side; or a Circumstance, no part, but accident of Worship, which of them I know not. Perhaps his Illustration will spring some light. [As in Justice; it may signify, 1. The virtue itself. 2. Some Act of that virtue. Or, 3. the degree thereof, and frequent repetition of the Acts of it; but for the Circumstances of time, or place, attending on any Act of it, they will never be called Justice, with any propriety.] Where, 1. he leaves out, (whether negligently or willingly) the other word Ceremonies: For there may be some Ceremonies also in Public Justice, the Formalities of the Judges and Court, etc. He should have told us, whether those may, in any propriety, be called Justice; as Ceremonies in Religion, are by some called and made Worship. 2. He should now apply this distinction and illustration, and tell us, what now he means by Worship; whether the virtue, or some Act, or degree & frequency of it, or the Ceremonies, that is the circumstances of time and place: if he mean the latter only, Circumstances of time and place; as it is not comprehended in the word Will-worship, so it is not controverted between us: as hath oft been said in the other Tract. If he mean the former, let him consider, that he confutes himself from the beginning of this Discourse; who maintains Will-worship, Uncommanded-worship, men Devised-worship; not Will-ceremonies, or Will-circumstances of Worship, time or place; which can with no more propriety be called Worship, than the same, or the like Ceremonies or Circumstances, in exercising of Justice, can be called Justice. But he is no less confused in the next; for he says, [Secondly, for the other part of the word will, or choice of man; it may be of four sorts distinguishable by the matter willed: 1. When it is forbidden by God. 2. Commanded, but not ad semper: 3. Left free. 4. When though not indifferent nor forbidden, but good in an high degree, yet not under particular precept, and so omitted without sin, etc.] But here's confusion enough: 1. Who ever distinguished the faculty of Will, (which is but one) into four sorts, according to the objects or matter of the things willed? 2. Will, in this word, must be referred only to Worship; (Will-worship) which is either commanded or forbidden; there's none left indifferent. 3. That there should be any thing, which is neither indifferent, nor forbidden, nor commanded, (and yet good in an high degree) is to me a mystery, and some of the Doctor's new Divinity. It helps him not to say, [It is not under particular precept.] For if it be under a general precept, it is under precept, and so pro hic & nunc, (as they say) cannot be omitted without sin, and if then done, how it can be highly rewardable by God, eo nomine, because not under particular precept, I am yet to seek; of which more hereafter. 4. His particular instances, are nothing to the present purpose; which is of the Will, with relation to Worship, and none of his instances are of Worship, but other things. We inquire, what Will, signifies in the word Will-worship; whether, it import, willingness in commanded Worship, or willing and instituting Worship not commanded: To which all that distinction, and discourse of the Doctor, says nothing; Only he takes occasion from the last part of his distinction to empty his Notebook, of what he had read of that notion, [of things good in an high degree, neither indifferent, nor forbidden, nor commanded, and yet highly rewardable by God;] wherein I shall not now follow him, but consider it in a place more fit for it, where we shall meet with it again. We shall attend his application of that distinction, n. 6. (for the 5. 
p. 96. n. 6.  is lost) or rather his no-application of it; for he tells us nothing, in which of those four senses he takes the word, will, but comes presently to the word in composition, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship, to distinguish of that, and then tell us, in what sense he does not, or does take it. And to confound us the more, hath found out six ways, or things, which it may denote. [1. The performing any sort of worship to God, forbidden by him; which yet is not truly but equivocally called Worship, etc.] Where I observe; first, That any sort of Worship forbidden by God, is Will-worship, and consequently Superstition; and so Worship of Daemons, is not the only Superstition, which the Doctor was very loath to grant in his former Tract. 2. How warily he speaks; [which yet is not truly Worship, but equivocally;] It's sufficient, first, that the offerers think it truly Worship; and then I would ask, is not false Worship truly called Worship, if Worship be properly distinguished into true and false, as several species thereof, as it is by the Doctor hereafter? But we go on; 2. [The using any Ceremony in God's Worship, which is forbidden, etc.] Now for these two, the Doctor says, [He must readily acknowledge, 
p. 97. n. 8. Was not the Worshipping of Angels, a Will-worship? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and forbidden?  they are criminous, and he pleads not for them, nor are they capable of that title of Will-worship.] But, first, Worship forbidden by God, and devised and instituted by the mere Will of man, may well be capable of the title of Will-worship: but forbidden Worship, is Worship devised & instituted by the mere Will of man, s. 1. may well be called Will-worship. 2. Worship not commanded by God, or uncommanded Worship, is forbidden by God as hath often been said & proved: ergo, all uncommanded Worship, that is set up by the mere will of man, is criminous, & may well be called Will-worship. [3. Ridiculous and unprofitable Ceremonies, which though not where forbidden severally by God, yet by their multitude become an hindrance to devotion, a yoke too heavy for Christians.] What thinks he of these? He professes his dislike of them, 
p. 97. n. 9  [yet thinks it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apostle, but rather to that in Epiphanius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superfluity of Will-worship: where still the fault is the superfluity, etc. and not the Vncommandedness of them.] Enough hath been said to this in the former Tract: But I add, first, The multitude orsuperfluity of Ceremonies made parts of Worship by men, as they were by the Pharisees, and are by Papists, may well be capable of the title of Will-worship. 2. The fault is not then only the Superfluity; for any one Ceremony made Worship, by the Will of man, 
Ceremony in common acception, signifies, external Worship; and being appointed by men, any one is a Nimiety, and Criminous; as was said above.  is a Superfluity, and too much, and so criminous, as Will-worship. 3. Epiphanius taxes the Pharisees, not only for their superfluity of Ceremonies, but for their Will-worship in them. The Doctor then must not beg, and take the word Will-worship, in a good sense, and talk of [Superfluity of Will-worship.] 4. If these superfluous ridiculous Ceremonies, be not applicable to the word in the Apostle, Col. 2.23. Why does he make this one sense, or one species of Will-worship? Surely superfluous Ceremonies are one species of Superstition, in the judgement not only of others, but of the Doctor himself in the former Tract; and being imposed by the Will of man, may well be called will-worship: the Vncommandedness of them, as well as the Superfluity, will name them so. And if any one such Ceremony be lawful, and so a second, and a third, etc. The more the better; and how then can there be a fault in the multitude? when as the Doctor said, [If they be wholesome, 
Of Superstition, s. 41.  then there will be little reason, to accuse them of excess; for they will then more probably help the inner devotion, then encumber it.] But of this afore sufficiently, and we go on. 
All Ceremonies in the sense above, are forbidden. n. 10.  4 [Using or instituting one or more Ceremonies, not forbidden, yet not commanded, but founded in some pious or prudential consideration, &c] Of this he says, [It is not Worship in itself, and I need not allow that the title of Will-worship, 
Does not the Doctor in this and the next Tract, plead for Will-worship, in Ceremonies and Uncommanded Worship in Festivals, etc. and yet now will not allow them the name either of Worship, or Willship? n. 11.  but refer it to those Circumstances of Worship, etc.] But suppose this one or more Ceremonies be made parts of Worship, not mere Circumstances; will he not them grant them Superstitious, and so Will-worship, by the Will of man? as was said to the third sense afore. 5. [Offering to the service of God any thing, which God hath any way revealed, he will accept of, and reward, if duly performed, etc.] But what means he, by offering to the service of God? that men may offer service, or Worship, which God hath not commanded? This I suppose he will not say; yet palpably does it, in his maintained Will-worship: what then? will he say, it is not Worship, but a Circumstance of Worship? Then it cannot indeed be called Will-worship, for it is not Worship at all: yet to this, the Doctor applies the word in the Apostle, under the notion, [of voluntary oblations, and as good and commendable (not way vicious) if it be truly such as it pretends to be.] So then, he calls that Will-worship, which is no Worship: and yet with a limitation, [if it be truly such as it pretends to be.] So that if it be not truly such; such what? such Will-worship, as is good and commendable, the Doctor (begging that there is any Will-worship good) will not allow that, the name of Will-worship, in the Apostle; though it be instituted merely by the Will of man. There is yet one way more, 6. [Lastly, when either for the degree or frequency of any known act of Worship, a man doth more than be is by God's law strictly required to do, prays, or 
* Fasting is not an act of Worship: but an help to Worship: yet here and elsewhere made so.  fasts oftener, etc.] But to this I say, 1. This is impertinent to the point, for we are speaking of Will-worship, not of Commanded Worship; Worship devised by the Will of man, not by God, as prayer is. 2. The degrees and frequency of these Worships, are under a precept, if not particular, yet general; with respect to abilities and opportunities: but the Will-worship we speak against, is under no precept at all, unless by way of prohibition. 3. He that will take upon him to Pray or Fast oftener, than God's law strictly requires of him, must certainly know, how oft God's law requires him to pray, etc. and no oftener: which the Doctor may do well to determine out of the chair. 4. We speak not of degrees and frequency of acts of Worship commanded, but of new sorts or kinds of Worship not commanded, instituted merely by the Will of man: And of such Will worship the Doctor must speak, or he says nothing. Let him now consider, whether by his sixth-fold distinction, he hath not rather clouded, then cleared the business. [Will-worship cannot be imagined to denote any more than some one of these six things, etc.] Whereof the four first, are not allowed the title of Will-worship; The two last are not properly Worship at all, I mean, 
He call them six species of Willship. n. 14. p. 98. n. 13.  new sorts of Worship; and besides fall under Commanded Worship. But we speak of [Will-worship which respects the Will, and choice (of Worship) by man, without any necessity imposed by God] as himself states it. n. 13. Let him speak plainly; What does the Apostle mean by Will-worship? In which of these six senses must it be taken? Is forbidden Worship, Will-worship? no, that's not truly but equivocally Worship. Are forbidden Ceremonies, Will-worship? no; they are but Circumstances of Worship, but no Worship: and so of the rest. I must profess, I know not well what he resolves to be Will-worship; but I conjecture, he means it of the fifth and sixth part of his distinction, 
See n. 11. & 12.  voluntary oblations, which God by no law exacts from every man, or Fervency and Frequency in commanded Worship: Now if these two be either no Worship, or no new sorts of Worship, instituted by the will of man, than the Doctor hath denied that there is any such thing as Will-worship, at least sinful Will-worship in the world. I will not anticipate, but only in a word or two: The first sort of his Will-worship, is [voluntary oblations, which God by no law exacts from every man:] But than I say, To those, of whom God does not exact it, it is no Worship at all: and to those of whom he does exact it, (for of some the Doctor grants he does exact it) it is Worship commanded; and so uncapable both ways of the title of will-worship. Nay if those, of whom God does not exact it, should tender it to God, as new Worship; they would incur the censure of (sinful) Will-worship. But this is new Divinity to the Doctor, (though it is his own) and must wait till its time comes: And I proceed with him, to consider what he thinks of my distinction, which was this; [The words in both languages, may be taken in a double sense. 1. For willingness and freeness in worship commanded by God. 2. For worship devised by the wit, and appointed by the will of man.] 
p. 98. n. 13.  To the former part he says, [That can be no species of that will-worship which respects the choice and will of man, etc.] I pray, did I make it a species of will-worship, to worship God willingly, in commanded Worship? And not rather make that, one sense of the word, as it is compounded with, will of man? man's will, I hope, may willingly perform commanded Worship; and that may be one sense, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first part of the word. And why does the Doctor refuse this sense? [Because he supposes, that in the commands of God, not only the action, but the cheerfulness of this performance is in like manner commanded by God, and so necessary, and not voluntary.] Grant this true; yet I ask, may not a man do a command of God unwillingly? if he may (as is evident he may) then may he also do it willingly: and the necessity of it, doth no more hinder it from being voluntary, than the unlawfulness of an act against the law, makes it the more involuntary. That a thing may be necessary to be done, in respect to God's command, and yet done voluntarily in respect to man's will, I hope the Doctor need not learn of me. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, surely, signifies such a willingness sometimes: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a willing servant; not with respect to the service of his master, but to his own will; doing willingly what is commanded. 
Eph. 6.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with good will. n. 14.  For sure the Doctor will not allow a servant a will and choice, to appoint his master's service, of his own head, and call that willing service, in a good sense, but will-service, in a bad sense. And that's the second part of my distinction: to which he says, [It hath many improprieties in it, and this great fallacy, plurium Interrogationum, confounding and putting together things most desperate, etc.] But I appeal all Readers, if there be any thing but plainness, in the second part of my distinction. Are not those two senses given, the only possible ones to be given of the first part of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Let the Doctor find a third if he can. As for his fourfold distinction, there is not one of them almost to the purpose, as hath been showed above: Neither do they at all distinguish the sense of the word will; but the several objects of the will: clean beside the business. And if I have distributed will-worship into but one part (I distributed only the sense of the word will) as he flours me, in the end of n. 13. I may more truly say, he hath distributed will-worship into no parts; for none of them in his sense are proper to the business in hand, as I showed afore. It's better to distinguish into one part, then into nothing. 
n. 15.  Let the Reader judge. In his last number I cannot but observe briefly some things. 1. I cited in my first Section a saying of S. Austin, as the sum of the second Commandment, in the affirmative part. [That God must be worshipped, with his own prescribed worship,] and another of the Doctors own glosses of that Commandment in the margin; [God is to be worshipped, in a manner pecular to him, and appointed by him.] What says he to it? handsomely puts it off, with saying, [It appears already how little force it hath against my pretensions, it being evident that the words cited, belong to essential parts of God's worship, not to each Circumstance, etc.] But this is a prevarication. For nothing appears before concerning either of those sentences, but the Doctor hath peremptorily affirmed, 
See p. 43. n. 4.  [That in the second Commandment, there is not a word to determine the matter of it, to commanded worship: nothing but the prohibition of Idol worship.] Which if it be not a contradiction to what St. Austin and himself said above, let all reasonable men judge. And now, when they are clearly laid before him, in a proper place, to shuffle them off, with a distinction of Essential parts of Worship, and Circumstances, etc. is a very poor evasion, to hid his self-contradiction, and to wink against the light. 2. Here also, he grants, an Affirmative and Negative part of the second Commandment, which before he denied, or doubted of: But I refer to what is said above, only adding, that essential parts of Worship, may import these Ceremonies he speaks of, are accidental parts of Worship: and so they are made to be by many.   

Sect. 2. How oft, or seldom the Greek word is used in other Authors, or the Translators of the Old Testament, we shall not trouble ourselves, etc.  
TO this Section, little or nothing is said, that is material; I shall therefore briefly dispatch it. And I cannot but take notice, that the Dr. waves the stating of the question, upon the two senses of the word, before by me given; and my fixing it upon the latter, saying, [The thing signified by it (in the second sense, in which the Reverend Doctor must take it, or he hath no adversary,) viz. Worship devised and imposed, by the will of man, is so much decried, etc.] The Doctor leaves out those words in the Parenthesis, and will say, neither I, nor no; which he ought to have done: For thus I argue; The Doctor must take Will-worship, either for willingness, in commanded Worship, (but that he disclaims) or will-devised Worship, for non datur tertium; there can no other sense rationally be given: If he take it in this latter sense, (as he must or he hath no adversary) let him speak out and say so, and the question is fully stated. Yet though this be the sense of the word, in his own opinion and practice; he will not be so liberal, as to say so: For what means he by will-worship? why voluntary, spontaneous, uncommanded Worship, as he speaks hereafter, which should have been said here: This he must maintain to be lawful, or he comes not near the question. To dislike my distinction, and to say, 
p. 100 n. 5.  [There may be many acts of worship, many Circumstances of worship, which may bear proportion with worship, that are not under obligation, etc.] is just nothing to the question; because they either are no worship, or not devised by the will of man: and then [what proportion they may bear with worship] is not inquirable.   

Sect. 3. What the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the place, Col. 2.23. signifieth, may indeed be gathered from the context, etc.  
IN manifesting the scope of the text, I used the Interpretation of Beza, and Bishop Davenant; supposing it to be, to beat down some Corruptions creeping into their Worship; and all Rites and Ceremonies, obtruded as parts of Worship, etc. To this he says, 
p. 101. n. 1.  Their words are presently answered, by adverting to the distinction, given, between the Essentials and Circumstantials; the parts and Ceremonies of Worship.] Nothing here but confusion still: For 1. What is this to the point in hand, the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter? 2. One of them, expressly says, the Apostle disputes against all Rites and Ceremonies, obtruded as parts of Worship; what is his distinction to this? or how is it any answer to them at all? It is not yet the question, what is meant by Will-worship, by those learned men, but what the Apostles scope; Let him apply his distinction, and see its vanity.  
The next is as bad a mistake; 
p. 102. n. 2, 3.  [That I charge him, to say, that the Apostle there speaks of the commands, or prohibitions of Magistrates, verse. 22. in things indifferent, and censures those under the stile of Will-worship.] The clean contrary is asserted by me; The mistake lies in this, (and that I charge the Doctor with,) that he says, [The Apostle does not speak of Commands, but Doctrines:] Whereas I say, he speaks of Commands, as well as Doctrines: (both the words are here) commands I say, not of the Magistrate, that I disclaim as well as he; but of False-Teachers, 
See my 4. s. and his own acknowledgement. p. 104. n. 1.  who laid those Abstinencies upon their Disciples, as their Doctrines and Commands; but were nothing but Traditions and commands of men; who had no Authority, in point of Worship, so to impose upon the people of God: and then all his labour in the 3. and 4. numb. is utterly lost. What the meaning of Commands here is, and whether the same with Doctrines (as the Doctor says) we shall consider anon. But one thing, must here be remembered, (he says) [That the Seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick Heretics.] 
p. 103. n. 5.  This is once afore said by him, and many times more hereafter, I know not well how oft; I shall here speak to it, once for all, and but point at it, when ever it comes again. 1. The Gnostick Heretics, were not yet hatched, when Paul writ this Epistle to the Colossians; I find no news of them, till the time of Basilides, Carpocrates and Valentinian, who all lived in the second Century, about 120. or 130. These were the first, that called themselves Gnostics, as men of greater knowledge than any others. So Iraeneus lib. 1. Of Heresy, c. 34. Ex his, etc. from these, Basilides, Carpoor, etc. Who were formerly called Sinonianis, the multitude of the Gnostics did arise. So Tertull. Advers. Valentin. Atque ita insolescentes doctrinae Valentiniorum, in sylvas jam exoleverunt Gnosticorum. Upon which words, Rhenanus thus, Valentiniani superbo nomine, se Gnosticos appellabant. Horam principem facit Irenaeus, Valentinianum. I know how the Doctor will evade, by saying, The name indeed began then, but the Doctrines were the same, with those of Nicholas and Simon, etc. who lived in the Apostles times: 
So Epiphan. and Austin seem to say.  But that's but an equivocation, or evasion, to say the Gnostics were in that time, and meant here by the Apostle, because they sucked some of their poison from those Heretics: Saint Paul therefore could not properly intent the Gnostics. 2. This is Estius, a Papists gloss upon 1 Tim. 6.20. [Oppositions of science falsely so called,] a fit text to be applied to the Gnostics, than this of ours; Quamvis credi potest, Gnosticorum nomen non statim cum haeresi emersisse, sed aliquantò post tamen Apostolorum temporibus rem ipsam, jam tum à Simone & Nicolao originem accepisse certum est. But in that sense, the Gnostics may be said to have their Original from the ancient Baalites, and Heathens, who were as abominable in their filthy worships of their Gods, as the Gnostics lightly could be. 3. The best Commentators on this place, never dreamed of the Gnostics; but generally say, the Apostle opposes himself against two Sects, then troubling the Church: First, some Philosophers turned Christians, who brought in Philosophical speculations; at these he strikes, verse 8. and 18. in Worship of Angels. Secondly, some Judaizing Christians, who would keep up the Ceremonial Law with the Gospel; against these are the 16.20, 21, 22. verses. In particular, the 21 verse hath clear reference to the Abstinencies formerly commanded the Jews, but now abolished by Christ, Touch not, taste not, etc. as some say. However, there is little or no colour to bring in the Gnostics here; who though they agreed with others, in abstaining from such meats and drinks, yet the chief poison of that Sect was, in abandoning and vilifying of Marriage, and in other abominable filthinesses, for which they had not the least pretence from the Jews (with whom the Doctor says they joined) to abstain from Marriage, that being never prohibited to the Jews, as some meats and drinks were: yet the Doctor speaks hereafter, 
See p. 109. n. 3. n. 10.  as if the Apostle here intended them, that forbade Marriage; as the Gnostics after did. And I do a little wonder how he missed a Criticism in the 21. ver. Ne attigeris, touch not; that is, Mary not; (so the Gnostics said) for which he had a fair text of Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.1. [It's good for a man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to touch a woman;] that is, not to Marry. So in the text here, Touch not, first, Mary not; Taste not, first, such or such a meat, etc. But enough of this at present, for it will often meet us again. For the rest in this his third Section, it will come to be condered in a fit place: only saying now, That, a show of wisdom is appliable to 
* No justifiable humility, p. 112. n. 10. And austerity is of the same kind there.  humility, and the rest, as well as to Will-worship; all being equally naught and condemned.   

Sect. 4. That we have not mistaken the Doctor's meaning, will appear by that which he adds, etc.  
THe chief business in this Section, is to speak to the instance of David, appointing the Levites to serve from the age of 20. years: whereas God by Moses had appointed it but from 25. 
p. 105. n. 6.  The Doctor says, he made this alteration upon prudential reasons, as a King, not as a Prophet: or by inspiration, as my places of Scripture import. 'Tis true, there are prudential reasons given for what he did: but prudence of man is not sufficient to alter the institutions of God: It's this prudence that hath undone the Church, that men will be wiser than God, in altering and adding to the Rule of his Worship. 
See 2 Chron. 29.25. for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets.  Let the Doctor look once more upon the text, 1 Chron. 28.12, 13. In the 12. verse it's said, [David gave to Solomon his Son the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit, etc. and 13. verse. Also for the courses of the Priests, and the Levites, and all the work of the service of the house of the lord] If the Doctor saw not this, he was negligent, for I pointed to the place; if he saw them, he wilfully winked against the light; resolved belike, to maintain what ever he once says, right or wrong.   

Sect. 5. The full importance of the words, verse. 22. (he says) is this, That when those abstinencies are imposed, etc.  
COncerning the sense of those words, 
p. 107. n. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; I know no reason, why the Dr. should forsake the Interpretation of almost all Interpreters, unless because he loves to be singular: He says, the Apostle speaks not of the meats, but of the commands of abstaining; I granted this might be the sense, but yet it might well be rendered, as our Translation, and all (but the Doctor) do; [Which all are to perish with the using;] that is, [That now being out-dated, they perish without any Spiritual advantage.] To this he answers: 
p. 109. n. 4.  [This is sure very short, it being evident, that the imposing these out-dated observances, is not only, not advantageous, but hurtful, deadly, destructive.] But, first, the Doctor varies the question; it is not spoken of imposing them, by false Teachers, but of the Ordinances, or Abstinencies themselves, [which all are to perish with the using,] as used by the Colossians, whom they had seduced. 2. He that says, they were to perish in the using, does not exclude their hurtfulness, even to eternal destruction; there may be (as oft there is,) a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, less spoken, and more intended: so Saint Augustine's words cited by him import. But as for Saint Ambrose, he reads the text, Quae sunt ad corruptelam ipso usu, as ours do: and hath these words upon it, Quia praecepta & doctrinae, no● Dei, sed hominum sunt, in quibus vana spes est. And again; Hinc se sapientiae rationem habere putant, quia traditioni humanae, nomen Religionis applicant, ut religio appelletur cum fit sacrilegium: quia quod contra Authorem est, sacrilega ment inventum est: Ambr. in textum. Where these things are observable, first, that he reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, corruptelam; corruption, not destruction: 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he renders, ipso usu. 3. Gives the reason why those abstinences lose their virtue, which formerly they had, because they are not the precepts and doctrines of God, but of men, in whom hope is vain. 4. That he makes the crime to be, because they made them parts of Religion, or Worship, which is not Religion, but Sacrilege; and gives the reason, because they are invented by a Sacrilegious mind (by men) against the Authority of God. And now I hope, the Doctor will never cite Ambrose more, in this point. He knows Hierome, and the Greek Commentators take the words in our sense, referring the words to something understood, viz. meats, which are in interium ipso usu: So the vulg. So Estius, and all Papists that I have seen, 
Will-wor. s. 5.  besides all our reformed Divines. [That sense (says he) is sufficiently improbable, because the Apostle speaks not of the meat, but of the commands of abstaining:] And this supposition of his is as sufficiently improbable; 
p. 109. n. 3.  because (as himself says,) [The antecedent to, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all which, is Touch not, Taste not, etc.] But then the words must be meant, not of doctrines or commands, (for they can in no good sense be said, to perish with the using, as we read; or are to destruction, by the abusing, as he reads) but of the abstinences themselves commanded, or as used or practised by the Colossians; they being now out-dated, perish in the using; and are destructive to them that make them necessary parts of Worship and therein abuse them: But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the abuse, should belong to the the Doctrines of abstinence, can be no good sense; which Doctrines of abstinence, are to destruction, by the abuse. But this is good; which abstinences are to destruction, by the abuse, viz. of an ordinance, some time since profitable, as a part of Worship: but now abusively continued to that end. Besides, the Doctor says, [The words, Touch not, etc. denote other abstinencies, besides that of meats, particularly, that of marriage.] But, these are the Doctors second thoughts: for in his former Tract of Will-worship, he saw not this of marriage; or the Gnostics, that after prohibited marriage as abominable: 
Humane out-dated Judaical Constitutions. Will-wor. s. 14.  So [Touch not, etc. noting thereby those doctrines which affirm men obliged to fasting, or abstinence from such or such meats; (the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to touch, signifying to eat, etc.] Not a word of abstinence from marriage) then thought of; though, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, might signify, to marry; as I said above. 2. Let marriage be taken in with meats (if that will please him) yet as the speech would be improper, to say, marriage perishes in the using; (as he objects to us) so also to say, marriage perishes by the abuse; If he say, he reads thus which (abstinence from marriage) is to destruction by the absue: So it might be said of any other gift of God; and then the Apostle says little to the purpose, in the particular case; any creature abused, is to destruction. But the Apostie here speaks of Ordinances of God, abstinences under precept lately; (but so was never abstinence from marriage,) but now used, or abused to a wrong end, being abolished by Christ: Now wherein that abuse consisted, comes next to be enquired.  
The Doctor placed it in this only, 
n. 5.  [That those abstinences were imposed as Divine precepts, this is an abuse of them; (otherwise innocent,) etc.] To which I said, 1. There is little or nothing in the text, to import this: He replies (something angrily) [what will, with him, be accounted great I know not; but something there is, to incline it this way; 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vers. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doctrines signify those things, which are taught, as from God. Matth. 15.9. as formerly hath been showed, etc.] This indeed was asserted before, p. 3. n. 1. but not proved at all; and here it is again asserted more largely without any convincing proof: yet he says, [It's evident from the form of speech; 
Col. 2.22. The words are, After the Commandments, and doctrines of men: as both one.  In vain do they Worship me, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men; where the Commandments of men, are taught, not as such, but as doctrines of God.] It's much to sight, with what eyes men look upon objects. To me and others the contrary rather appears; For, first, if I might play the Critic a little, I would say, there is not in the text to be found, the word (for:) The words are thus; teaching doctrines, the Commandments of men: that is, doctrines which are merely the Comandments of men: 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, does no where that I know, signify [to teach things to be Divine precepts, which are not:] The word (says the learned Professor) signifies, 
D. Dau. in locum.  [teneri, vel abstringi dogmatib. magistrorum nostrorum; as the Academics were bound to receinve the dogmata, the Doctrines or opinions of Plato, the Peripatetics of Aristotle, etc.] But sure they did not teach or impose their doctrines, as Commandments of God. 3. The very text produced confutes the gloss; where the doctrines of the Pharises, are called the Commandments of men; and opposed to the Commandments of God vers. 3, 6. Yea the Pharisees themselves, called them, the Traditions of the Elders, vers. 2. etc. This he would thus evade: [They were so really, Commandments of men, 
p. 110. n. 6.  yet were by false Treachers imposed, as Commands of God, and therein their false teaching consisted.] This might be true of some false teachers, that preached up the Ceremonial Law, after it was abolished, as still obliging by divine precept; but there was no colour for the Pharisees, to pretend to a divine precept in their new Traditions; being known not to be commanded by God, in the Jewish Law; and therefore they called them only, Traditions of the Elders: They being men of great repute, for knowledge and piety, did invent, and then by their own example, commend some new ways of worshipping God, and then by their Authority, they had got in their Disciples hearts, as pious and devout men, did lay their own doctrines upon them; and they stooped and were subjected to them. They did not therefore so much as pretend them to be the Will and Commandments of God, (sure our Saviour would not have been silent, in such a blasphemy) but only that they would be pleasing and acceptable to God, as being more than he commanded; which is the opinion of all formal Hypocrites, in their Will-worship. And I cannot but wonder, the Doctor should hold our, that they pretended their Doctrines to be Divine precepts, when he makes them differ from the Karraim, in this, that they transcended the Law, in their Worship; in uncommanded Worship. Now to say, their Worship or doctrines of Worship, were Divine precepts, was to derogate from that height of excellency, which themselves (and the Doctor) conceited to be in them. Let him consider it,  
But to convince him the more, I could tell him what Calvin's judgement was of that text, Matt. 15.9. Omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hic damnari minimè dubium est: but the Doctor will easily slight his judgement. I shall therefore give him the gloss of a learned Papist, whom he more regards. It is, Tolet on Luc. 11. Annotat. 84. [The Priests had brought in many novel things, though Moses had with great terror threatened them not to add any thing: of which number of additions, were those washings. There was a double fault. 1. The innovation itself, was no slight fault, etc. 2. Another was their Superstition. The Pharisees had put in those washings, not for any natural or civil cleanliness, but as pertaining to Religion: who so did contemn them, were judged to offend against God's Worship: and whoso did observe them, seemed chief to regard God's Worship in them. But this was in no wise lawful, etc. for Christ rejected these washings as superstitious, Mark 7. In vain do they Worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men. i e. such things as men set up of themselves against the Commandment of God.] Not, (as the Doctor) [such things which though they were the doctrines and commandments of men, yet were imposed, as Commandments of God] Judge, Reader, which is the better Interpreter.  
But supposing (not yielding) they did hold them out as Divine precepts (that I said, was an abuse of them:) yet the fault might be, they made them parts of Worship: that would make them more destructive: And this our Saviour particularly chargeth upon the Pharisees, [In vain do they Worship me.] They made their Traditions, to be parts of Worship: I asked, [whether placing Worship, in the observation of those ordinances, though not imposed as God's Commands, were not an abuse of them, to destruction?] The Doctor answers (as a man amused) by ask me; 
p. 111. n. 8.  [What I mean by Worship? if such (Worship) as a man may justly prescribe or practise; ceremonies perfectly lawful; or more, what is sure to be accepted, etc. 'tis certain, it were no abuse.] Here Reader, observe 1. That the Doctor grants, a man may justly prescribe, and then practise his own prescribed Worship. 2. That he calls Ceremonies, Worship, which hitherto he called only Circumstances of Worship. But he knows, I mean it of Worship; what then? [If he mean the commanded Worship of God, than his question implies a contradiction; for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in, that is taught, as a command of God, or else it were not Gods prescribed Worship, which yet it is supposed to be.] I mean it not of commanded Worship, (it were ridiculous indeed, to ask such a question) but of uncommanded Worship, devised of his own will, against the will of God: may not a man devise false Worship, and yet not pretend it to be imposed by Divine precept? Surely Papists do so, in many of their Will-worships; holding them our, not as Divine commands, but as things very pleasing to God, and rewardable by him, etc. Upon this my question falls; to which he says nothing, but gives as strange a reason; [for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in, that is taught as a command of God, else it were not Gods prescribed Worship] Which is proved false by the former instance; and begs the question, That no man places Worship in any thing, but he must teach it, as a Command of God; which I believe the Doctor will contradict by his own practice; placing the Worship of God in some things, and yet denying it to be a Command of God. I shall take another instance, from himself in the next number; 
n. 9 He (falsely) supposes abstinence from marriage to be meant in Col. 2.23. See p. 107. n. 3. n. 10.  [It is certain abstinence from marriage may be lawfully practised, by him that can bear it, all the error is in imposing it on others, etc.] Suppose now, a man does not impose it upon others, yet places the Worship of God in it, to Worship God by it, as Papists do; (whether the Doctor do so, we shall hear anon) I would ask, whether this be not an error, to place Worship in that, which God doth not command? Whether Col. 2.23. be a [setting down the abuse, and defining wherein it consists] or no, shall be tried hereafter.   

Sect. 6. Yet let us hear wherein the Doctor places the danger, etc.  
WHat ever is repeated in this Section, by the Doctor, is fully answered in the last; and the Doctor's notion, I still say, is singular and his own, [That the false teachers held out their doctrines as Commandments of God;] which no Interpreters of the place, do touch upon: I shall only observe, what Estius notes upon the text, answering this question; [Seeing the Apostle speaks here of Legal Rites, instituted by God, how doth he call them the precepts and doctrines of men? which in the Scripture are taken in the evil sense, as also are the Traditions of men, viz. those things which are invented and delivered, by an humane sense and spirit.] He gives divers answers. 1. [Some took the place to be meant of the superstitious precepts of the Gentile Philosophy, or Simonian School (so did the Doctor p. 110. n 5. at least in part.) But this exposition is refuted; For those precepts were Jewish, Touch not, etc. as those afore, Let no man judge you in meat or drink: which without doubt was spoken of Jewish observations. 2. Others answer thus: Those Institutions of the Mosaical law, being imposed to foretell Christ to come, did now pertain no longer to the Law of God, but to the doctrines and precepts of men; who teach them still to be observed. So Chrysost. Theophyl. and others. 3. The Greek Interpreters give another, That the Apostle hath respect to the humane Institutions and Traditions of the Pharisees, mixed with the Precepts of God; For the Apostle says not only touch not, but handle not; which because it differs from the former, seems to be referred to some other things, the touching whereof, was forbidden, not by the law, but by the tradition of men.] And to this last he rather inclines. But he never took the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify things imposed as commands of God; but as the commands of men: Cur sinitis vos regi praeceptis, & doctrinis humanis: As touch not, etc. But if the Doctor had considered my question, [what it was they imposed by those ordinances and doctrines? was it not a way of worshipping God, by those 
* Abstinences and false worships, p. 111. n. 10. They commended them as acts of voluntary worship, and so to be acceptable to God. p. 123. n. 3.  Abstinences, touch not, etc.] He would have given an answer, or an evasion; and have said, yea, or no: If he should say no, they did not impose those Abstinences as a way of Worship, or as worship, the text would confute him; for all those legal abstinences, were parts of worship to the Jews, which these false teachers would have so continued. If he should say, yea, they did so impose them; then it's evident, that though they might impose them as Divine Commands, yet the main crime would be, their setting up, or continuing a worship of God, which Christ had abrogated: therefore the Doctor overlookt it, and said nothing. The danger therefore was, that they were but Commandments and Doctrines of men, (or if held out as Gods) placing the worship of God in those observances, which either he never commanded, or were now out-dated: Yet the Doctor is at his old fence; 
p. 113. n. 6.  [If they placed worship in them, in this sense, that they did or taught them as parts of Gods commanded worship, 'tis the very thing, I placed the danger in: If they delivered them as their own doctrines, they did not then place any part of Gods commanded worship in them.] Enough hath been said to this in the former Section: I only ask, what makes the word (commanded) here? Let him propound it thus, as I did; If they placed worship in them, (whether commanded or not commanded, is not material,) was there no danger and destructiveness in them for that? But the second part is false (upon a false supposition) that a man cannot place worship in things, but he must teach them as commanded by God. But here's one thing new; [If they taught them as such things, which though not commanded by God, would yet be acceptable to him still, after abolished by Christ, than they taught that which had no truth in it, for such kinds of abstinencies, are not now valued by God.] To which I say, 1. This will recoil upon himself; For he hath said, the danger was only that they taught them as Commandments of God, (which otherwise had been innocent things) in sect. 5. of Will-wor. but now he says, they had taught that which had no truth in it, though they taught them as such things, as would be acceptable to God, though not commanded by him. And is it no crime, to teach untruths? 2. It falls on him once more; For he doth teach many things (his will-worship) to be acceptable to God, which he hath not commanded; yea, the more acceptable because not commanded: then, he teaches that which hath no truth in it; for such abstinences of worship are not now 
* But more real acts of self-denial, mortifying of lusts, set up in their stead, as here he says: yet he highly values those very abstinences: as after, Infra pag. 129. n. 8. See p. 119. n. 15.  valued by God, who will be worshipped with his own commanded Worship. If he will say, he does not make them worship, that shall be tried hereafter.   

Sect. 7. And now we are come to the 23. verse, etc.  
NOt to trouble myself, or Reader, with every minute exception, and his flashes of wit, I shall speak only to the main differences: And, 1. a word in vindication of those pious men that opposed some (not all) Ceremonies of our Church, upon these two premises, 
p. 114. n. 1.  [1. That will-worship is a sin. 2. That the using of Ceremonies, not commanded by God, was will-worship.] For the first of these, that will-worship, that is, worship devised by men, is a sin, and a great one; I know none, Protestant or Papist, that deny it, except the Doctor; and perhaps not he. For the other, those men that said, [Ceremonies not commanded by God, are will-worship,] they meant it only of such, as they thought were made parts of God's Worship: and in this sense I believe the Doctor will call them superstitious, though he will not allow them to be Will-worship. 2. He opposes only the possibility of the word, (used only in this text) to be taken in a good sense; The task lies upon me the opponent (he says) [to prove my Affirmative, that Will-worship is criminous.] But I having made it visible, that the word is not taken in a good sense here, both by the judgement of almost all Divines, and some reasons beside; I may now at least charge him with begging the question; still to plead for a good sense. This discourse will make it more improbable, if not impossible to be taken in a good sense, in due time. 3. In the mean time we shall consider his Interpretation of the verse. [Which things have some true, at least appearing notion of wisdom in them;] I proved, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here signified not a reality, but a show of wisdom by the Authority of all Interpreters; and I believe the Doctor in his own conscience, did believe, or now doth, that it doth not signify any reality or truth of wisdom, yet how willingly would he have it so signify: Hear first his confessions; p. 111 n. 10. 
p. 117. n. 10. See p. 120. n. 19 Will worship s. 7.12. p. 103. n. 3. show, or reality, &c p. 115. n. 3.  He says it twice, [It was but a show, it was but a show, no reality of wisdom.] And hereafter p. 117. n. 10. [I acknowledge, it was but a show of wisdom.] And in other places the like: why then did he put in, (some true?) We have his excuse, and his willingness yet to have it so, the better to make Will-worship seem to be taken in a good sense. In case it should here signify the former, (some true notion of wisdom) then 'tis avoidable evident, that Will-worship, must be taken in a good, not ill sense.] But what if it signify the latter, as he says, he acknowledges it does? To what purpose then, does he amuse his Reader, with a sense acknowledged false? yet the same he does again hereafter. 
p. 140. n. 3. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should, &c  But in case it should signify truth of wisdom; he makes the Apostle to speak nonsense; to commend those doctrines of Abstinencies, from meats (and marriage too, by the Gnostics, says he) which he declaimed against, [Those things, have some truth of wisdom in them.] Why are you burdened with them, or subject to them? Well, yield it taken for a show of wisdom; [yet than 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, etc. if Will-worship hath nothing of wise, or good, but only of wickedness, in it, which is folly.] This is fully answered in my 12. Sect. (of which more add p. 135. n. 25.) I shall answer, by ask him these questions: 1. The worshipping of Angels, was a doctrine and practice of some; had not this a show of wisdom in it? 2. Had it any thing of wise or good in it? was it not gross Idolatry? 3. Now ask one more, in his words; How can that doctrine of worshipping Angels have so much as a show of wisdom, in a Will-worship, will-devised Worship, if this kind of Worship has nothing of good, but only of wickedness in it? answer one, and both: But let him but look back, at the abstinences here condemned; from meats (and marriage) this was the special thing wherein they placed false Worship: now ask, as he, [how can these abstinencies have so much as a show of wisdom, in that false worship, if false worship hath nothing of wise or good in it?] Must false Worship, therefore be taken in a good notion? But he will say, Will worship is good or bad; so is not false Worship. I answer, that then he begs the question, to say Will-worship is good, and taken here in a good sense, which is the question: If he say, so do I, taking of it, in an ill-sense; I answer, the advantage lies on my side, who have the concurrent judgement of most Interpreters; and he is alone and singular in his sense. But more of this anon.  
He asks again, 
p. 117. n. 8.  [What words are there in that verse, to show that these abstinences are destructive because no better than Will-worship?] It appears, because the scope of the Apostle is, to beat down those Abstinences as made parts of Worship of God; which he doth not at all do, if Will-worship be taken in a good sense, but rather commends them. [These things, abstinence from meats (and marriage, he will needs have it so) in a Religious way as Worship of God, have a show of wisdom, in good Will-worship, and humility, etc. all good things.] Why then do ye not embrace those doctrines? much more in case they had the truth or reality of wisdom, or piety in them: only take heed of holding them to be commanded by God, and there's no danger nor destructiveness in them. Yet he thinks, his conclusion more reasonable: 
n. 9  [They have some show of wisdom, in Will-worship, therefore Will-worship, if it be truly such, hath some reality of Wisdom in it: else that which hath but a show of Wisdom in it, cannot have that show, in respect of Will-worship.] But, first, this begs the question, that there is any truly good Will-worship. 2. His consequence, is false, it should run thus; then Will-worship hath some show, not reality of Wisdom in it; for sure, those Abstinences, had (as Worship) no reality of Wisdom in them, yet had a show of it. 3. His proof is as weak; change but a word, and see it: Idolatry hath a show of Wisdom in it, in worshipping of Angels; therefore it cannot have that show, in respect of worshipping Angels, unless worshipping Angels have some reality of Wisdom in it. His case of Adultery, is not parall I here: Nay, in the next numb. he acknowledges not only [that it was but a show of Wisdom, 
n. 10.  but also it was but a show of Will-worship and a show of Humility, not true.] But here are more mistakes. 1. Here was but a show of Wisdom indeed, but here was in those Abstinences, a reality of Will-worship; Whether good or bad. That it was Will-worship, that is, uncommanded Worship, is evident; and that uncommanded Worship is sinful and bad, is not denied; and so a reality of bad will-worship: and then will-worship here is taken in an ill sense. 2. There was a show of Humility, in worshipping Angels, vers. 18. but sure no reality of wisdom, or Humility in it, (an impious humility, as he called it afore;) So there may be a show of Wisdom in will-worship, and yet the Worship impious and abominable. Hence I can grant, [that as the humility is, such must be the will-worship:] 
n. 11.  That is, as the humility in worshipping Angels, and in these Gnostick Abstinences, was impious, so was the will-worship in both. And this I can further grant, [That will-worship humility, and self-denial, are all three in the same state in this place;] that is, all vicious and criminal; as that will worship, and humility, (joined with self-denial thereto, 
See my tenth sect.  though not expressed) ver. 18 was a vicious and impious will-worship and humility. I do not acknowledge the two latter to be virtues, (as he charges me) but equally vices with will worship. For a man to abstain from meats (or marriage) as it is a will-worship, (in the Gnostick way) so the humility and self-denial pretended in it, were as vile and abominable to God, as the will-worship. And thus his Achilles is slain, his great argument answered.  
The following numbers, 12, 13, 14. are but a strife about words, and so I pass them by; but take notice of what he says in the next: 
p. 119. n. 15.  [That the abstinences from meats (and marriages) 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 free-will-offering of abstinence from meats and marriage.] But, first, what's become of Humility, that's in the text, and they are said to have a show of wisdom, in humility, as in the other: He that abstains voluntarily may seem to practise a piece of Piety, in Humility. 2. Do those two named, but seem to practise self-denial, and offering to God a free-will-offering, that is, a will-worship, 
See supra ad p. 113. n. 6.  abstracted from the error of dogmatizing? I had thought they that abstained from meats and marriage, had more than a show of Piety, and did more than seem to practise those duties (if they did not dogmatise,) that is, had a reality of Piety, and did really practise self-denial; For these are part of the Doctor's will-worship, which he defends, and applauds as acts of highest Piety: as we shall hear. 3. These practices of Abstinence, etc. abstracted from the error of dogmatizing, but yet made a part of Worship (as by Papists they are) have they not a show of Wisdom in them? and yet are odious to God? The Doctor still lays all the crime upon dogmatizing, which may be abstracted from them, and yet the things sinful and unlawful, as now we see. 
n. 16.  [The worshipping of Angels (supposed now a corollary of the Philosophy, ver. 8. said to be all one and the same, Superst. s. 7) that also hath a show of Piety in humility.] Now suppose this abstracted from the error of dogmatizing; will the Doctor say this man practices a special piece of humility? And hath not this humility, thus impious (as he said) an influence upon the Abstinences following? Does not he, that (with the Gnostics) abstains religiously from meats and marriage, practice humility as well as self-denial? and may not the humility, in both, be equally vicious, in a will-devised Worship? sure the placing of Religion, or worship in those Abstinences, is as criminal, as the worshipping of Angels; both being forbidden by God. There is only one 
* Unless, that the n. 19 is twice. p. 121. n. 20.  thing more in this Section worth taking notice of (the rest being but a contention about words.) 1. That he is by me charged with presumption in changing the text, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which though he desire my pardon for, (which is not usual) yet he seems not to take it well. All I shall say to it, is but this; That as it is presumption in an Interpreter to alter the reading of the Scripture text, having no ancient Copy to favour it; so it may seem an itch of singularity, to make a Criticism, to help to confirm that, which he believes to be false; (as he does Will-worship Sect. 12.) and which will not advantage his cause, if it were granted to be the true reading; Yet still he is at it. Again, [If they had the least degree of Piety in them (reading somewhat of Piety;) then that was in this respect, etc.] p. 123. n. 3. when he hath of acknowledged, they had only a show, as above; and being nothing but the Gnostick Abstinences, (as he will have it) he cannot imagine them to have the least degree of Piety in them. As for the particle, 
p. 121. n. 21.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, omitted by him, his defence is easily broken; I know not why he should neglect it, in his paraphrase (for to that place my exception lies) unless it were, to colour his reading the better, [Which things have some true, etc.] For it were no good sense, regarding the Apostles scope, to say, which things have indeed some true notion of Wisdom or Piety, etc. This were to commend them, and the, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be, not an extenuating, but an amplifying particle. But enough of this.   

Sect. 8, 9 That the last part of the verse, not sparing the body, etc.  
IN the eighth Section, nothing is excepted to; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 123. n. 4.  and in the ninth nothing but a strife of words, in a point, beside the main business; [Whether the Abstinences were well comprehended under free-will-offerings; and whether they may be called positive things:] Wherein I shall not contest (to swell this Discourse) but leave the Doctor to his own opinion; though much might be said therein, only these things might be said to show the difference, 1. The Doctor understands these Abstinences [of the Gnostics, detesting of marriage, 
p. 122. n. 2.  making it damnable, etc.] sure such are not comprehended under Free-will-offerings. 2. These Abstinences are condemned by the Apostle, as destructive, whereas those Free-will-offerings were allowed and commendable. 3. The Free-will-offerings were by him, made parts of Worship, but I think, he will not say so, of the Abstinences from meats and marriage: If he should, I would say, he is nearer the Gnostics, than I was the Epicureans; who pretended them to be (as he does here) acts of voluntary oblations, or voluntary Worship; and so acceptable to God. Had they not defamed marriage, and brought in those abominable filthinesses, the Doctor and they might have shaken hands. Yea, in making Abstinence from marriage, a part of Worship, and a state of greater perfection than marriage, (pronounced honourable in all, by the Apostle) both they and he do implicitly defame marriage. 
Offering to God a free-will-offering of abstinence, etc. p. 119. n. 5. p. 123. n. 4. n. 5.  That the Doctor makes fasting and Virginity, or self-denial, in matter of meats and marriage, a part of Worship, may appear, 1. By the Phrases he uses in commending of it; [Designing it to the honour of God; looking on it, as that which will be acceptable to God, though not commanded, and as such, dedicating it to God; this sure will be a Free-will-offering.] This was spoken of Fasting; but then he adds, [The same is as visible of Virginal chastity, etc.] That is, so designed to the honour of God, so acceptable to God, so dedicated to God; All which imply the things are put into a Religious state; and made Holy, 
Abstaining for Religion or Piety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 133. n. 19 So Salmeron. p. 146. n. 21. p. 123. n. 4.  and parts of Worship. 2. That he calls them voluntary Free-will-offerings, which confessedly were parts of Worship. 3. That here (as hereafter) he gives it the title [of greatest perfection.] Now to place perfection in things, which God never placed in them, is a species of Superstition, (as was discoursed in the former Tract.) But the Doctor to gratify me, will throw a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an apple of contention, before me; (which he is very good at, having thrown abroad more such apples of contention, than almost any man of late; except but J. G.) [That such the Abstinences 
* We speak of those Gnostick abstinences, not of such, as he will fain.  may he, that they safely and fitly may be comprehended under the selfe-denials and Free-will-offerings:] He instances in two particulars, Fasting and Virginal chastity. That these are or may be acts of self-denial, is true; that is, when God calls for them: otherwise, they are not acts of that self-denial, which our Saviour requires, as the first lesson in his school; Fasting, is then acceptable, when God calls for Fasting, Isa. 22.12 by either some public or private and personal occasion: and yet then, is not a Free-will-offering, as being then necessary; nor a part of Worship, but an help to Worship, as our Divines generally hold. But for a man to set apart days of Fasting, twice a week, as the Pharisee, or oftener as Papists, as an Act of Religion, and Worship of God, when God by no just occasion calls for it, is no acceptable service of God, but rather, displeasing and abominable, as prescribing self-devised Worship. Say the same of Virginity, or single life; either God calls for it, and then it is a duty; or he calls not for it, and then it can be no act of true self-denial; much less, an act of Worship, pleasing to God. For thus I argue, [either the party hath the gift of continency, and then he denies himself in nothing:] what self-denial is it, for a man to deny himself drink, when he is not a thirst? [Or be hath not the gift of continency, and then he may not deny himself the remedy and satisfactions tending to it; because than he exposes himself to temptations.] But now, supposing a man hath the gift of continency, and so resolves to keep his Virgin; if this man should make his self-denial, or Caelibate, a part of Religion and Worship, (as Papists do) he will be guilty of Will worship. And if he shall beside, make this state of Caelthate, 
See Q. of Divorce. Sect. 36. Not commanded at all, but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection.  an higher, even the highest or greatest perfection, and so advance it above marriage, in himself, or another; he comes near to the Gnostics, in defaming and depressing marriage, an honourable ordinance of God, and preferring his own fancy before it; and may justly fear, that God will give him over to vile affections, and abominable lusts, (not much short of the Gnostics, as is visible amongst Papists) for dishonouring honest marriage. And now I could, if I listed, throw out another Apple of contention before the Doctor; [Whether he that assuredly hath the gift of continency, is not by God called to single life?] I will give him some reasons for the Affirmative, and leave them to his Determination. 1. Every Special gift of God, is a Special Talon to be improved for the glory of the Giver. But such is the gift of continency, a special gift, 
1 Cor. 7.7.  Matt. 19.11. [All men cannot receive this saying, save those to whom it is given.] And therefore he that hath it must improve it, for the kingdom of Heaven's sake, ver. 12. 2. Our Saviour seems to lay a command upon it, ver. 12. [He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.] Which is not a bare permission, but a kind of precept. And this in the judgement of some learned, whom the Doctor cannot well reject. The first is the B. of N. Doctor Hall, of Honour of married Clergy, lib. 1. s. 7. Who thus speaks, somewhat in our Doctor's language; [Neither do we think that the earth affords any thing more glorious, than Eunuchisme for the kingdom of God; which is therefore commended by our Saviour, not as a thing merely arbitrary, by way of advice, but of charge to the able, Qui potest capere, capiat.] And a little after this, he says of such as upon trial, find they have the gift, and make profession of it, [The observation whereof, if they through their own neglect, shall let fall, they cannot be excused from sin, or freed from censure.] But than it can be no Free-will-offering, but a duty. The other is, the learned Doctor Hamond; who seems to me, to make it obligatory, to him that is able to bear it; pag. 211. n. 27. [Virginity, I hope, is not every man's duty, but at the utmost, his, who can receive it.] If then it be his duty, that can receive it, it is neither Free-will-offering nor high degree of perfection; which yet these two whose Testimonies are cited, do seem to make it. However, if it be free, for him that hath the gift, to marry; if yet he should abstain voluntarily, accounting it, a part of God's Worship, or a degree of higher perfection, it will, I think, prove no better than a sinful Will-worship. But more anon of this. Those men that hold  in natural men, to Good, as well as to Evil, no marvel if they talk so much of Free-will-offerings and self-denials, in these things; which an Heathen or an Hypocrite may do, as well as they.  
The words cited out of Chrysost. distinguishing acts of man's will from Commandments of God, and making them, first, 
p. 124. n. 5.  more rewardable than the acts which are under precept, will fall in again to be spoken to, more fitly; till than I shall forbear. [That abstinence from marriage, 
n. 7.  was never commanded by any Law,] I never doubted; but I never dreamt that that was here censured by the Apostle; no Interpreters beside himself, that I know, ever so expounded it. But the Doctor having once assumed it, (as serviceable to his purpose) most confidently carries it on as yielded him, and all along applies it to the Gnostick Heresy, who, I said, were not hatched, till Paul had long been dead, in the second century.   

Sect. 10. First he says, he will give his reasous, etc.  
THat the Doctor in taking the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a good sense, complies with some Papists, is evidently true; that most Papists take it, 
p. 125. n. 1.  in an ill sense, is also clearly true: yet [he confesses himself unable to give any answer, as not guessing wherein the objection lies:] But presently after finds my meaning. The objection lies here, that the Doctor (for carrying on his own design) had rather join and comply with those few Papists, who oppose the Orthodox sense of the word, then with our own Divines, and those many Papists which agree with them, (which oft they do not) in the ill-sense of the word. For not only myself, and partners (as he scornfully speaks) but the learnedst Doctors and Bishops of our Church do so expound it. That the Doctor should be cross to them, and to the more ingenuous learned Papists, is something to be admired. But hear what he says, 
p. 126. n. 3.  1. [He borrowed not this Interpretation from any Popish Writer, but from the weighing of the text itself, etc.] It may be so; yet may he comply with them; As Doctor Montacute professed, he never read word of Arminius, yet was as perfect an Arminian, as if he had studied him many years. It's no wonder that men of parts do meet in the same error. As our vulgar people (on the other side) and all the Sectaries (for the most part) do meet, in the errors of Arminius; Universal Redemption,  to good and evil, etc. Yet never heard of, or read, Arminius, or the Doctor's Fundamentals. 2. Yet well far a stout heart; He says, [he shall not startle at the Interpretation upon that account, many Papists having given true senses of Scripture.] But sure, than all our Divines agree with them, as they with us; truth forcing them to it. Now such is the text or word before us; most of the Popish Interpreters take it in an ill-sense, and render it, by Superstition; and that's a strong Testimony against an Adversary. But, 3. he will retort the argument upon me; [The sense which he hath given is owned by most of the Papists, than he that complies with most of the Papists, and not he which complies with some few, must be guilty of that crime of compliance.] Sure this must be, where those few Papists, are in the right, and the most of Protestants and Papists are in the wrong; which if the Doctor should affirm to be the present case, he begs the question, and wrongs those many learned men of the contrary judgement. And when I said, 
n. 4.  [I did believe his Interpretation was without any precedent, Protestant or Papist, s. 7.] I meant not absolutely, to a man, but for the most part, (as after I said.) Chamier says the same, yet after instances in Bellarmine, taking it in a good sense, and so does Salmeron too, hereafter: But Estius, as judicious, and ingenuous, as any Papist I ever met with, says, in confutation of those, that will needs take it so, 
In locum.  Docere non poterunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usquam accipi in bonum. [They can never teach (or prove) that Will-worship is taken in a good sense.]  
But that the Doctor will undertake to prove; [first, 
p. 127. n. 1.  Because it's joined with Humility.] I said, Humility was not the laudable Christian virtue, but a pretended humility, etc. He answers, [That serves his turn very fitly; for still they are associated, pretended Will-worship, with pretended humility; then the fault is in the fainedness of them both: but when they are truly such, they are Christian virtues, etc.] This was spoken to, partly before: Here was not only a show of Will-worship, but real Will-worship, in those observances: and not only a show of Humility, but real Will humility, and Will-self-denial, (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is appliable to all three, (as I noted from Estius.) 
Pretended humility may be in a commanded Worship, but affected, in a Will-worship.  Now Will-humility, (which is more, than pretended Humility) is an Humility affected, not of God's command or allowance, and so sinful, as well as the Will-worship. Besides, in the 18. verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imports, a voluntary uncommanded Humility, and is joined here with Worship; and both confessed by the Doctor to be impious: Why may it not be so understood here, those Abstinences being as impious, as worshipping of Angels? There was in both, a show of Christian true Humility, but there was also a real Will-humility; as a real Worship, or Will-worship. Say the same of Will-self-denial, or will-devised ways of mortification: I instanced in the Romish Penances, made parts of Worship. To which he says, 
p. 128. n. 4.  [It is not their making it the Worship of God, that renders it culpable, but ridiculousness, and unfitness to the end designed.] Let the Reader mark this, to make new sorts of Worship, (such as Romish Penances are) is not culpable. And yet the Doctor hath condemned all new sorts of Worship, as impious and unlawful, more than once. I wonder not now, that he justifies Will-worship. But he hopes to help himself, by saying, it is not that, [but the ridiculousness and unfitness.] And why not both these? for they are both. He knows, there are other Ceremonies or practices named, which are not ridiculous, nor cruel laniations of themselves, but seem sad and grave exercises of devotion; as their Pharisaical Fast from flesh, their Caelibate, Religious orders, etc. wherein they place much Religion, that is, make them special parts of Worship: will he say, this does not render them culpable? If so, he will say, I know no great reason, but he may, in most of their Will-worship, join with them: and I fear, does make some things parts of Worship, which are as like theirs, as one egg is to another.  
In his vindication of his second argument; he again rejects that notion, of [some truth or reality of Wisdom] to be meant by the Apostle; yet comes of with a mind to have it thought possible. [The bare possibility that it might so signify, 
n. 5. See p. 140. n. 3. and n. 25. If it should be so taken, etc.  supersedes the proof from this text, for the criminousnes of Willship.] When he knows, if he will not offer violence to the text, there is no possibility, it should so signify in this place. It was ill done to dazzle the eyes of his Reader, with such vain notions, as this.  
We are next to consider the sense of 1 Tim. 4.8. [Bodily exercise profits little, or is profitable for a little] as he reads it: I said, 
p. 129. n. 7.  [there was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it's hurtful and abominable:] The Doctor jests it away, first, comparing it with, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 26.28. But I say, there's a great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this text, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the other: which must be taken from the context here: for the sense, look back to the former verse 7. [Avoid profane and old wives fables, but exercise thyself unto Godliness: for bodily exercise, etc.] Now ask Interpreters what is meant, by profane and old wives fables; Chrysost. will tell him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, others refer it to those Jewish fables, which he censured, 1 Tim. 1. Some to the Fables of the Simonians, of a good and an evil God, etc. But the best is to consult the context: at ver. 3. where he tells of some, that should (in time to come, ver. 1.) depart from the faith, so far, as [to forbid marriage, and command to abstain from meats.] These were those profane and old wives fables, and called by them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exercises of Piety and mortification: To these the Apostle opposes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Godliness, that is, [the true and right Worship of God;] as Estius well explains it: [Exercise thou thyself, in the true Worship of God;] for, those bodily exercises, though pretending to much Piety, profit nothing; that is, made matters of Religion, and parts of Worship (as they were by some Heretics, in those, or in following times) are hurtful and abominable. Those exercises of Religion, in abstinence from meats and marriage, were long ago exemplified in the Gnostics, (of whom with the Romanists, this is a prophecy) and perhaps in some, in the Apostles times, not yet come to detest marriage as damnable, etc. but only placing some Religion in them; and calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of these the Apostle speaks modestly, they profit little, that is nothing; though he mean, they are hurtful, and indeed abominable. And if the Apostle had meant it, of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Doctor understands by them, he would not have said, they profit a little; but very much; not to the body only, as some, but to the soul also; to make more 
* See p. 131. n. 15. & n. 17. The excellencies of Fasting. De jejunio non potest hic locus accepi, quia non est corporalis exercitatio, sed spiritualis. Estius in locum: vide laudes jejunii. The Doctor makes Fasting Worship, p. 130. n. 12, 13. and so Piety, and not a bodily exercise.  acceptable to, and rewardable by God, as under no command, and being voluntary oblations, and Free-will-offerings, which (says the Doctor) may expect greater reward in Heaven, than any commanded service. Besides, the opposition of Godliness to those exercises, argues, they were considered as ill and hurtful by the Apostle; For abstinence from meat and marriage (those bodily exercises) in the Doctor's conceit of them, are great parts of Religion, Piety, Devotion; and therefore could not well be opposed to Godliness; the Apostle certainly looks at something before, under the notion of bodily exercise, else he could not say so abruptly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for bodily exercise, (before intended and expressed in some other terms) whether the Jewish observations or abstinences from some meats, ver. 3. as Chrysost. or those abstinences of fore-prophesied heretics, from meats and marriage. ver. 3. 
Ad p. 109. n. 4.  profits nothing; that is, is hurtful, and destructive; as the Doctor said above. And these are the grounds of my Interpretation. If the Doctor, have any better, let him impart them, or enjoy his own opinion.  
Somewhat he says, to that which I said, [of making those abstinences parts of Religion, or Worship] which he calls, [an help at a dead lift,] 
p. 130. n. 10. n. 11.  and disputes against that notion, saying, [They that make abstinence from marriage a thing acceptable to God, and a state of perfection, do not count it a Worship unless in a generul sense, as every virtuous act performed to God may be styled Worship, and so this, a Will-worship.] Here first we have a distinction of Worship, which should have come long ago; that we might know in what sense the Doctor took it, when he speaks of Will-worship. Something was said of the word worship, p. 93. n. 3. but than it was only distinguished from [external Ceremonies, or Circumstances, which are not parts but accidents of Worship.] And nothing was called Worship, but [the virtue itself, or some act thereof, together with the degrees and number of those acts] But now we have a distinction, of Worship, in a special, and a general sense, as every virtuous act (of the second Table) may be styled Worship.: which is most improperly. 2. What means the Doctor to talk of Will-worship, and voluntary Worship, if they be not Worship, but in a general sense, as every virtuous act of righteousness, etc. may be styled Worship? that is, not an Elicite act of Religion or Worship, but an Imperated act of it; as visiting the poor and widow, is by Saint James called, pure Religion: If thus he meant, why did he not tell us so at first, to prevent both mistake and trouble? 3. Those abstinences forbidden by our Apostle, were formerly acts of Religion and parts of Worship properly, and were so held out still by the false Teachers; not Worship, as every virtuous act may improperly b● called Worship. 4. The Papists for certain do make them parts of Worship, place Religion, in their Caelibate, Fast, and Religtous Orders, etc. not in a general sense, but proper and special Worship. Will the Doctor yield, that they that do so make them parts of Worship, are superstitious, and this is unlawful. Will-worship? I shall ask no more. Lastly to make things more acceptable to God, because not commanded; to place more virtue and more perfection in things, than God hath placed in them, is confessed to be superstitious: But this the Doctor does sufficiently; and this we call Will-worship. And that we may not go far for an instance; the Doctor makes Fasting, a Sacrifice, n. 12. and a species of Worship, as well as prayer, and almsgiving, and calls it [an acceptable worship of God,] as Papists do; 
p. 130 n. 13. See p. 14. n. 20. Fasting and Alms, two sorts of God's Worship.  which our Divines deny to be Worship, but only an help and furtherance to worship.  
By the way, the Doctor, as he makes Worship of that which is not Worship, so he degrades some Worship, and makes it none: 
p. 131. n. 14.  [Hearing of Sermons is not any acknowledged branch of Worship.] I know he adds the word (bare) to hearing; but bare hearing of the word by profession is Worship, though not pure and right Worship; as bare praying with the lips, is Worship; but vain Worship: [In vain do they Worship me etc. and bare preaching of the word, is Worship, though not true Worship. But the Doctor makes hearing of Sermons no Worship; when he says, [Hearing of Sermons, in case it should be taught, or assume to be a part of God's Worship;] As if to teach it to be a part of Worship, were an assumption, or presumption. Indeed this is some of the old language, that Preaching and hearing of Sermons was no Worship, but the whole Worship of God, stood in reading and hearing the Liturgy.  
That the Doctor placed the illness of those bodily exercises, in this, when they are taught as necessary, to the defaming of meats and marriage, I found no fault with, but that he placed it in that only; I expected that he should have spoken to my question; 
p. 133. n. 19  [If they taught them not in that sense, but only placed Religion and the Worship of God in them, as Papists do, were they not ill?] To this he says just nothing, but empties his Notebook, to prove, what is not denied.  
By all Interpreters, I meant, the greatest part; 
p. 134. n. 22.  and he cannot name any, it seems, before Grotius, a Neoterick, 
n. 23. etc.  Cassandrian Author. As for his question, and what here he again repeats, it is spoken to before, upon the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I shall only add, that he varies the question, by altering and putting in words not in the text, piety, for wisdom, and (in respect) of Will-worship: the words are, a show of Wisdom in Will-worship; that is, those abstinences wicked enough, made a Worship, by those men: And here it is, that some would have the adversative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be understood; [but in Will-worship,] that is, in False-worship, devised by the will of men, it hath a show of Wisdom, but is but Will worship; which supposes, the Will-worship, to be ill and impious. And the Doctor himself says, 
n. 24.  [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.] To clear this, change but the word, Will-worship, into 
* So the vulgar, and others read it.  Superstition, or Idolatry; and then ask, may not those abstinences have a show of Wisdom, in respect of Superstition in them? or, and yet [be but Superstition?] which most Interpreters take to be the sense of the words. Now Superstition, amongst Christians, is always taken in an ill-sense, as hath been proved above: put another like question, may not worshipping of Angels have a show of Wisdom in Idolatry; or, and yet [be but Idolatry?] All the question than is, whether, there be any Will-worship good; which (as we deny) it concerns him to prove, because he is on the Affirmative part, and must not beg the question. He again varies the question, when he reads, 
n. 26.  Piety for Wisdom, here: [How can a thing have a show of Piety, in respect of that very thing which is impious?] The words should be thus, how can a thing have a show of Wisdom in respect of that thing which is impious? changing Wisdom into Piety, and putting in (in respect) makes all this difficulty. For mark his next question; [Can any thing be represented to me, 
n. 27.  as having so much as a show of Piety, in respect of lust, or rage discernible in it:] He should first have said, a show of wisdom (not of piety) and in lust, and rage, (not in respect of them) can a thing have a show of wisdom, which is but lust and rage? And then I would answer, first, it may: and secondly, the question is well laid; [For lust and rage are confessedly for kind, wicked things; but Worship may be true or false, etc.] He asks, [whether Will-worship may be so, true or false? 
p. 136. n. 28.  that's the word we contend about.] What if we say, it may not, but is always false? [Then it is directly parallel, with lust and rage, they always ill and this also.] Why that's it we assert; but then see afore how he altered the question: I said Worship (not Will worship) may be true or false: The truth of Worship consists, in the Institution or Command of God; the falsehood, in the Institution of men. Now that's Will-worship, and therefore it is always false. We do not say, nor can with reason say, Will-worship is true or false, but is always false; and therefore the Doctor (begging this distinction) is far enough from a demonstration pretended.  
When I said, [The words are not, 
p. 137 n. 31.  which things have a show of wisdom, and of Will-worship, etc. but in Will-worship: and if faulty because they had only a show of Wisdom, they will be more faulty, that they had but a show of Worship.] I said in the last clause, too little; for here was more than a show of Will-worship, and Will humility, etc. even a reality of them. Now Will-worship being Worship devised by the will of man, (not Commanded by God, which only makes true Worship) it must necessarily be False-worships and so ever unlawful; as was said above. He may compare this verse with the 18. There was in the worshipping of Angels, a show of Humility, and a show of Worship; but there was more, a reality of voluntary humility, and a reality of voluntary Worship: and both of these, mistaken and impious: so in these abstinences, there was also a show of Worship, and a show of humility, etc. but there was more; a reality of Will-worship, and of will humility, etc. and all these, impious Worship, humility, and self-denial; being all devised by the will of man, not commanded by God. This may satisfy any reasonable man. Will-worship than is not taken in a good sense here, because it is joined with humility and self-denial; but contrarily, they are here both taken in all ill sense, because they are joined with Will-worship, Will-devised Worship, which is always false; both because it is not commanded (but forbidden) by God, and also, because invented and instituted by men: And now the Doctor may see, that Will-worship, is parallel to Judas traitorous kiss, 
p. 138. n. 32.  and Papists bowing to stocks and stones. And that uncommandedness of Worship makes it ill, is not only supposed, but proved in the former Tract. I say uncommanded Worship, not uncommanded Circumstances. The Doctor may now consider, how well he hath vindicated his second argument, for the good sense of the word; and I leave him all that wholesome heap of Rbetorick, 
n, 34.  to enjoy himself, who best deserves it.   

Sect. 13. A third reason is, because the Greek Fathers, etc.  
THe Doctor here gins with some of his flowers of Rhetoric, a scoff and a jeer, (much learning puffing him up.) 
p. 140. n. 2.  [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 engage him to a more familiar conversation with them; and then I am persuaded no body will have reason to repent of it.] This hath been the Doctor's language formerly; not only in slighting all our Modern Divines not of his opinion; Of Superst. s. 32. [Those Authors which come home to the point in hand, are so few, or so Modern, and of so small authority, that they would be scarce worth producing:] But also to undervalue their learning and reading; witness that speech of his, Will-wor. sect. 19 [The words in Latin (which is the language, which those that are most subject to be abused in this matter, will be most likely to read it in.] A pretty piece of scorn cast upon his Adversaries, as though none that were of a different judgement from him, in this particular, were able to read a Greek Father, or a piece of Philostorgius in Greek, but must only be beholden to the Latin Translation. Macte virtute. All I shall return, is but this, that if the Doctor had, either less conversation with the Greek Fathers, or made better use of them, then to follow them in their errors, and 
* See p. 145. n. 19 How he throws off Theodor. and p. 165 n. 6. Clemens. Alex. and Ambros. p. 145. n. 18. p. 140. n. 3. See p. 146. n. 21. Specimen (which is more than Speciem, or bare show, some real evidence.)  forsake them in their true interpretations; I am persuaded, no body (nor himself) would have reason to repent of it. For let it be observed once again, (seeing it comes so often) that though the Doctor durst not well contradict the Father's sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a show, not reality of Wisdom; yet how glad he would be, if the latter might, but by head and shoulders (as we say) be drawn in, to be the sense of the word; thus he says, [If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be there taken for ratio, the argument for the good sense would proceed most irresistibly:] which is proved above, irresistibly false. And once more, [If species should prove a true one, then, etc.] pag. 147. n. 25. Other like sentences are noted above, after he had disclaimed this sense of truth or reality; which I leave to his consideration, and go on.  
The Greek Fathers, rendered the word, a show, without power and truth; whereupon I asked, [Can that which hath neither power nor truth, in the Worship of God, be taken in a good sense?] He asks again, 
n. 4.  [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:] This is a common Fallacy, with the Doctor to say, it is spoken of but one, when it is spoken of both: yea, here both are one; the will-worship, is meant of those (Gnostick) Abstinences; and those Abstinences were this will-worship: these had a show, but neither power nor truth of Wisdom; and (said I) can that be taken in a good sense? Here I produced the Interpretation of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Latin Fathers; Ambr. Simulatam Religionem; Hierom. Superstitionem: so vulg. and all Popish Interpreters: what was it that these Authors say, was Superstition, counterfeit Religion? Sure it was those Abstinences: and so they were both one, that will-worship, in Abstinences, etc. had neither power nor truth. Yet hear what he says, [will-worship is rendered by Piety, and unless Piety itself can be taken there in an ill sense, will-worship must be taken in a good sense.] He had said before, 
n. 3.  [The Gnostick Doctrines cannot have so much as a show of Piety in will-worship, unless will-worship real, be Piety real; and appearance of will-worship, a foundation of an appearace of Piety.] But did not the Doctor say just now, [That the Fathers said it of the Doctrines of Abstinence, That they had neither power nor truth of Piety.] Now he says, [Will-worship is rendered by Piety, not the Abstinences.] The truth is, those Abstinences had a show of Wisdom or Piety, but were but Superstition, so the word is most commonly rendered, or [Voluntary Religion, which a man forges out of his own brain, willing to seem Religious,] as Estius hath it; that is, (say I) will worship: If then Superstition and such voluntary Religion, cannot be taken in a good sense, no more can will-worship, which is the very same thing. And the Doctor does but beg the question all along this debate, [That there is any real or true will-worship.] There is indeed a real () will-worship in those Abstinences; together with an appearance of Piety or wisdom. I end this, as he does; certainly I need add no more ('tis pity I should be required to say so much) of this matter.  
I had said, the simple word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes signifies false Religion; the composition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or will of man, with it, makes it worse: He asks, [worse then what? then false Religion? 
p. 142. n. 7.  This is fairly to resolve, that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God, is worse than false Religion; i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition.] I will not question the Doctor's Learning here, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Superstitiose Deo colo. Suidas, on the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Thracians.  but his Ingenuity, I do, and that twice: 1. That I meant worse, then false Religion, when I meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or will, made the word worse; which he could not but see, had not prejudice, and a desire to slur or slander me, blinded his eyes; which appears more in the second. 2. That I must fairly resolve, that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of God, is worse than false Religion, etc. When as his conscience knows, and his pen hath often testified for me, that I understand the question (not of any thing, 
n. 8.  as he, but) of uncommanded Worship, not of Circumstances of worship; as kneeling in Prayer, etc. as he most injuriously, would make his Reader believe. Hence I do not conclude, so absurdly, as he would make me, 
n. 9  [All Inventions of men are Idolatry, and worse than Idolatry;] but all invented Worship, by men, is Idolatry or Superstition: and then this proposition is convertible; I dolatry or Superstition is invented Worship; and Invented Worship is Idolatry or Superstition: Now Will-worship and Superstition being both one, in some sense it will follow, (in spite of all gainsaying) that all Will-worship is Idolatrous or Superstitious. And he still begs, that there is any Will-worship, not Idolatrous or Superstitious: And this may  that which follows; 
n. 10.  he that useth an uncommanded Ceremony in the Service of God, (provided it be not made a part of Worship) doth not take upon him to be wiser than God; but he that useth an uncommanded Worship. As for his acts of uncommanded Devotion, we shall speak to them in due time; let him in the mean time consider how weakly he hath vindicated his third Argument, and see if he can strengthen it better.  
Here are some other things yet considerable, but very briefly: As first, that he would fain get the learned Daille to be of his mind, (who is an enemy (I believe) to all Will-worship:) whereas his Interpretation is the same with our Divines.) He says, 
p. 144. n. 15.  [The false teachers had a threefold colour of Wisdom. 1. Will-worship. 2. Humility. 3. Austerity to the body, for which three things they admire these doctrines of men.] But I pray, what Interpreter, Papist or Protestant, does not so expound it? (By the way, note, he calls them, doctrines of men, not Commandments of God.) So had the worshipper of Angels a double colour of wisdom. 1. Of Humility, voluntary humility. 2. Of Worship, voluntary Worship, will worship; yet his practice was never the better for that; and that Humility and will worship, false and impious, (as hath been confessed.) But (says the Doctor) [he defines, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cultum sponte, & voluntariè assumptum; nulla cogente Dei lege:] Why, so does Beza, Bishop Davenant, and many of our own, yet take voluntary worship, in an ill sense; as the learned Chamier, his countryman, also does; whose sense, no doubt Mons. Daille knew well enough. What more? He says, [They were voluntarily undertaken out of 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 takens] As if all Idolaters, the worshippers of Angels, and Saints (as Papists, etc.) did not undertake their superstitious Worships, out of abundant (pretended) zeal and Holiness? Those Abstinences spoken of, (granted to be Gnostical and abominable) were they not undertaken out of abundant pretended zeal and Holiness? Thus Daille is easily vindicated.  
As for Ambrose, he is as much against him, as any man, (he had best question the Authority of those Comments, under his name.) For his words are these, Englished by the Doctor, [Hence they think themselves to have some appearance of Wisdom, 
p. 145. n. 18.  because they apply the name of Religion to humane tradition; and it is called Religion when it is sacrilege:] He speaks this of that will worship, in those Abstinences, where observe, first, 
He renders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wisdom, not piety, as the Dr. does.  that he says, they gave the name of Religion to their will worship. 2. That this which they called Religion was but an humane tradition, not held out as a Commandment of God. 3. That this Religion, or will worship of theirs, was but Sacrilege: what can be said worse, of will worship? The vulg. Latin and others call it Superstition; Ambr. calls it Sacrilege. But the Doctor leaves out the foregoing words, where he says, [they are the precepts and doctrines, not of God, but of men:] As I cited it above, ad p. 109. n. 4. As also the following words, why he called it Sacrilege, [because what is against the Author, (the Authority of God) is invented with a Sacrilegious mind.] Will the Doctor grant all this, and yet say, [they offended in this only, that, the will worship and humility were not what they pretended to be.] Let him go on to maintain himself by begging.  
For Theodoret, the reason (if he will needs have it) why I cited his sense of the word, amongst the Latin Authors, was, because I found it cited by a learned Divine, in Latin; But what says the Doctor to his Interpretation? First, he fairly rejects his sense, [as not pretending that all either Greek or Latin concurred with him, in this sense:] This is too favourably spoken for himself, for he might more truly have said, [That few either Greek or Latin, concurred with him.] I am sure none of our own Divines do, and therefore he is very glad of the company of Bellarmine, n. 14. and Salmeron, n. 21. and whether any more, I know not. But this he says he is sure of, 
p. 145. n. 19  [That it's not the uncommandedness of the worship, that he finds fault with; but, first, 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. 2. The bare show of Piety and humility, etc.] But I doubt the Doctor strains his conscience in this gloss; for, first, I observe, that Theodoret, did not understand the Gnostick Abstinences, but Judaical unseasonable doctrines, yet the Doctor will needs have it meant of them; and hath not one Interpreter for his notion, that I can find. 2. That the Doctor interprets, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be God's commands; which most properly signifies the contrary, their own doctrine, or Ordinances. And yet he says, [By his conclusion it's evident, that the Abstinences without the doctrines, would not have been deemed by him reprovable.] This runs upon the former false supposition, [That these Abstinences had no fault, but only that they were held out, as Commandments of God] When as we have proved, that they were sinful, because they were made Religious, and parts of Worship. But enough of this afore.  
The Ancient Fathers then, are not for him, but rather against him; he must now seek for assistance from some Modern Authors; not amongst our own, or foreign Protestant Divines, they are all against him. To Papists then he must go, Bellarmine he hath closed with above, [as one whose authority were alone considerable enough, if there were not some others, n. 14.] But he is not alone; Salmeron another Jesuit, hath the very same notions of this text, as if the Doctor had learned his Interpretation from him; 
p. 146. n. 21.  this learned Jesuit, renders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not by Speciem, (that might possibly signify, a bare show,) but by Specimen, which is more, some real evidence of Wisdom: which sense the Doctor hath oftentimes renounced, yet fain would have it so. 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (says the Jesuit) signifies cultum spontaneum, sive voluntariam Religionem, pro arbitrio cujusvis abstinendi à cibis: just so the Doctor, only with this difference, that the Doctor takes in the Gnostick Abstinence from marriage also, which Salmeron thought not of. 3. Alluding by this word, to the voluntary oblations of the Law, called Nedaboth, Free will offerings. How sweetly all correspond! 
n. 22.  But yet Salmeron is not thoroughpaced with the Doctor; [For Salmeron conceives the words to allude to ver. 18. In voluntary humility and worship, etc. And so goes along with Estius, and others in that mistake.] Truly if Salmeron take the words in allusion to the 18 ver. he confutes his own Interpretation of this 23. ver. For surely, that Worship of Angels, and Impious humility, is nothing of time with the Free will offerings. And I rather take him and Estius to be in the right in this allusion, then in his former Interpretation with the Doctor upon that reason. But they will differ yet further, (unless the Doctor will turn Papist, in the Divine Authority of the Church) in that which follows: 
p. 147. n. 24.  [Omnis ritus, etc. Every rite of Worshipping God, that is not delivered from God, but is invented by the will of man, is superstitious.] I never said so much, of every rite, if rite signify a circumstance of worship, or a ceremony, if not made a part of Worship. But will the Doctor say, Amen, to this of Salmeron? I much fear it. He will rather evade, and tell me, I leave out some of Salmerons words; [Not delivered from God, nor the Spirit of God, by the Church.] I did so, but not to conceal them; for I would ask the Doctor whether he agrees with Salmeron, in this notion, [That what is delivered by the Church, is from the holy Ghost; i. e. is of Divine Authority.] If he do not, why does he cite it, seeing it is as false to him as to me. And yet I see a reason for this, it would serve to blind his Reader, and to jeer me; for thus he says, [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.] And so would the Doctor suppose, and say too, if it were not for open shame, that the Traditions of the Church, are from the holy Ghost, and so not superstitious: But of this afore, and anon again, ad p. 162.10. As for Estius, he says indeed, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is here taken for Species in genere, sive vera sive falsa; but yet adds, licet verificatio fiat pro specie, & imagine falsa: And he cannot take it otherwise, in his sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is [an affected and feigned Religion, or Worship, and an affected and feigned humility, joined to an affected Religion.] And now the Doctor hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation of Estius. 
n. 26.  Whether Augustine and Thomas gave him authority to pretend their accord with him, let them agree among themselves, and the Doctor with them. Yet that which the Doctor citys from August. [Non sit Religio, etc. Let not our Religion be placed in our phantasms, etc.] is little for his advantage; for sure the Church of Rome, (and our Doctor with her) doth place much Religion in her own phantasms. 
p. 148. n. 27.  And yet we have the Doctor's full consent to this, [That all fictitious false worship, is to be avoided, etc.] If I list to pick quarrels, I would ask why the Doctor added false, to fictious Worship; some would suspect, there may be some fictitious true Worship; as he makes Will-worship to be true or false: But I let it pass, and hear what he says: [So is not the Commemorating the Birth of Christ, I hope, nor any Ceremony in use, in our Church.] He knows some Ceremonies of our Church, have been charged with the guilt of fictitious false Worship; and the observation of Chirstmas, as made a part of Worship, with the guilt of Superstition; not as intended to be so used by the Church, but as used by some of her rash Sons; and the Doctor hath not yet washed his hands from this charge. I shall only speak to the citation out of the Gloss on Coloss. 
p. 149. n. 29.  2. [Superstitio est, etc. Superstition is when the name of Religion is applied to the Tradition of men.] But say I, this is done sufficiently by the Church of Rome, and by the Doctor himself, if I be not much mistaken. He thinks to evade by saying, [Dogmatizing is a sin.] But sure that's not in the sentence of the Gloss. Dogmatizing with the Doctor, is to hold out a thing, as the Commandment of God; but the Gloss speaks, only of the Tradition of men, in what kind or way so ever held forth, under the name of Religion. And thus much to confute his third reason.   

Sect. 14, 15. The fourth reason, because by this way, that very obscure place may be conveniently understood, etc.  
WE have been very long upon the last Section, we shall be eased by the shortness of this: The Doctor puts it off, as spoken to before; and so do I; only I cannot but add to what I said before, these few things. 1. That the Doctor begs the question, in this argument, if you will but grant him his good sense of Will-worship (which is generally denied) then this obscure place may be conveniently understood, which hath posed so many. 2. The consequence is nought; for grant him his good sense, yet it follows not, that such Doctrines are destructive only, because they obtrude them as Divine precepts in this place; for they are held out as doctrines and commands of men; and if not held out as precepts of God, but only as parts of Worship, acceptable to him; the place may be as well and better understood. 3. Here he limits the text, to out-dated Judaical constitutions: but oftentimes in this his account, he says, 
p. 103. n. 5.  [the Seducers spoken of in this Chapter, were the Gnostick Heretics,] who abstained from marriage also, which the Jews never did. But enough of that, as spoken to before.  
In prosecution of my 15. Sect. he grants, and [willingly confesses, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
p. 150. n. 2.  is capable of an ill-sense, i. e. when the Worship is forbidden or false; then being ill, the voluntariness can infuse no goodness into it: as when it is good of itself, the uncommandedness cannot make it ill.] Here is an heap of Incongruities. 1. That here he confesses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship, to be capable of an ill sense; which he formerly denied, p. 96 n. 6. [That performing any sort of Worship forbidden by God, (which yet is not truly Worship) is not capable of the title of Will-worship.] Yet now says, it is capable of an ill sense, when the Worship is forbidden. 2. If Will-worship be ill when the Worship is forbidden and false; it must be so taken here, because those Abstinences made Worship were ill. 3. If the forbidding and falseness of Worship, make ill Will-worship▪ I say, all will-devised Worship is ill, (and so again the Will-worship here is ill; because it is forbidden and false. 4. When he says, [It being ill, the voluntariness can infuse no goodness into it,] it is dilute dictum; he should have said, the voluntariness infuses much ill into it, (as after he says.) 5. In the next words, [When the Worship is of itself good, the uncommandedness cannot make it ill.] He speaks as improperly; first, supposing (which is false) that any Worship is good, which is not commanded. 2. That, were it granted good in itself, the uncommandedness could not make it ill; whereas were it never so good (as the Ceremonial out-dated Worship was) yet the very uncommandedness of it, if made Worship by men, would certainly make it ill; as he will confess ere long. But I shall prove it thus, from himself: [All forbidden, or false Worship, is ill; but all uncommanded Worship, (that is made Worship by the will of man) is forbidden and false; ergo, it is ill.] The major is his own concession here; the minor is proved from his own Gloss upon the second Commandment, [God must be worshipped in a way, appointed by him.] Then all Worship not appointed by him, is forbidden and false.  
For the sense of the first part of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [That it signifies no more, but doing somewhat voluntarily, without any necessity to do it,] is another mistake; For a man may do a thing voluntarily, 
Vide Estius in v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Epiphan. signifies, one affecting Wisdom. Theol. dives Theb. sapiens. Aust. p. 150. n. 4.  and yet must do it, of necessity also: This is true, in all Commanded Worship; and beside I gave an instance, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies a willing servant, not in respect to the service of his master, devised of his own head, which no master would endure, but in respect to his own willingness, to do his master's commands; as I said above, ad p. 98. n. 13. But take the Doctor's sense of the word; [this notion is, that it signifies Worship not Commanded by God.] That's just the sense against which I dispute, Will-worship is Worship not Commanded by God; such was the Abstinence, from meats (and marriage) continued as a Worship of God; this Worship, the Apostle condemns as Will-worship, Worship not Commanded by God, but by men; ergo, Will-worship must needs be taken in an ill sense. And let him once more look back to the 18. verse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies a voluntary in Worship of Angels; that was a Worship, not Commanded by God, and evil; just so were these Abstinences, made Worship, not now Commanded by God; ergo, If he say, (as he does somewhere) the Worship of Angels, was more than not commanded, it was forbidden: so say I of those Abstinences, as made a Worship of God, 
The Dr. himself says, they were out-dated and forbidden. p. 19 n. 32 and often. n. 5.  they were more than not commanded, forbidden. And I add, all uncommanded Worship is forbidden; yea forbidden, because it is not Commanded by God: God must prescribe his own worship; ergo, any Worship prescribed by man, is false and forbidden. The Doctor therefore beats himself, by sticking to this sense of the word, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (says he) signifies one that doth any thing from his own, not another's will and command; but the word to signify voluntary in performing commands, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] But say I, first, to do any Worship from his own will and not from the will and command of God, is forbidden; ergo, it is sinful and wicked Worship. 2. He grants, that there may be a voluntariness in performing commands; yet that implies, a necessity; which he opposed afore, n. 3. Let not the Doctor now come and tell me, he means it not of Worship, but of Circumstances of Worship; for he pleads hitherto for Will-worship, uncommanded Worship. Indeed, as ashamed of this, 
p. 151. n. 6.  he qualifies it, a little after, [Will-worship, i. e. a performance voluntarily taken up, without any command of God;] and thus he shifts and hides himself often hereafter. For, the word performance is too general, and may reach to civil things of the second Table, left indifferent; but we speak of Worship, which is more special; let him speak out and say, [Will-worship is a Worship voluntarily taken up, without any command of God,] and then he speaks like himself, that is, unlike to all Reformed Divines; if he will undertake to maintain such Will-worship to be lawful. Nor do I dispute against this signification of Will-worship, as if I thought the Dr. 
p. 151. n. 7.  did not take it in that sense, for Worship not commanded by God; for I tell him [that sense of the willingness of the Person in Commanded Worship, will not help him.] For he takes it in the other sense, I dispute against his sense, as justifiable in this text: that the word taken for uncommanded Worship, should be taken in a good sense, if Will-worship signify uncommanded Worship, (as the Doctor takes it) it cannot be taken in a good sense: because all uncommanded worship is forbidden, as I have too often said, being necessitated to follow him, in his often repititions. I knew he took the word to signify voluntary uncommanded Worship, but I knew withal that he hath condemned all uncommanded Worship, in his former Tract, and that makes me stand amazed, that he should defend it here.   

Sect. 16. 6. Reason itself assures us, that things done in the service of God, are not therefore ill, because Spontaneous, etc.  
IN application of my distinction of voluntary Worship, I said, [Worship of God commanded, 
p. 154. n. 3.  is not ill because it is Spontaneous or voluntary, (I took both for one) that is, willingly performed, etc. but in Worship devised by man, the will bears all the blame, etc.] He answers, That [Worship is either false or true, etc. 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, etc.] I desire no more, to determine the question: and thus I argue, In all wicked unlawful Worship, the will must bear the blame: But all uncommanded worship, is wicked unlawful worship; ergo, the will that devised it, must bear the blame; and (as I said) the more voluntary, the more abominable.] What can the Doctor except to? The Major is his own here, in express words: the Minor hath been proved from himself also; because uncommanded worship, is forbidden by God; who alone must prescribe his own worship. And the Doctor hath often granted in his former Tract, that [to devise new sorts, or kinds of worship, not commanded by God, is utterly unlawful.] But say I, to set up uncommanded worship, is to devise new sorts of Worship not commanded by God; ergo, It's utterly unlawful: how he will extricate himself, I profess, I know not: But he adds, [This can have no place, where the worship is lawful.] He must mean though devised by the will of man: Now this is as much as to say, [Man's will may devise and institute lawful true worship, but not false or wicked:] When the question is, whether all worship devised by the will of man is not wicked and unlawful; and whether all uncommanded Worship (which is, the same with will-devised worship) be not false and wicked: No, (says the Doctor) good and true worship, not commanded by God, but by man, is blameless; that is, is lawful, and good, and true Worship: Does this become the Doctor's learning? It seems he likes it well, for he says, [That a worship in itself and materially lawful, 
p. 154. n. 4.  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.] But, first, No worship, can be materially lawful, without respect to the command of God; a thing so considered, abstracted from the command of God, is no worship at all; ergo, beasts, were the materials of Jewish worship, but till Gods command passed upon them, for sacrifice, they were no worship: It's God's command that makes things Indifferent, and lawful to be worship. 2. This is not to confound things distant, for in worship, not commanding, is forbidden; as I have often said: Indeed in things Indifferent, as Circumstances of worship, etc. not commanding, is allowing, due cautions being observed. And I shall join with him in this sentence, [It is as impossible that any thing should be unlawful, in respect of God's Law, which is not forbidden by it; as any thing should be lawful which is forbidden.] But then I add, all worship not commanded, is forbidbidden; ergo, all Worship not commanded, is unlawful.  
But still he asks, 
n. 5. He changes my words: the voluntariness of an action: which I spoke of worship.  [How can the voluntariness be the irregularity, unless the law forbidden voluntariness?] Let not the Doctor equivocate with us, in the sense of the word voluntariness, and he may easily answer his own question; voluntariness, in prescribed Worship, is not forbidden, but commanded in every Worship; but voluntariness in uncommanded Worship is forbidden, because that Worship is forbidden. And the Doctor told us, just now. n. 3. that [in unlawful wicked Worship, the whole blame, lies on the will of man.] But I shall assume, once more, all uncommanded Worship, is unlawful and wicked Worship; ergo, I shall continue still to say, [There is an Universal Negative command in Scripture, prohibiting all Worship, all new sorts, and degrees of that Worship, beside what are in particular commanded.] The Doctor deludes us again by changing Worship, into acts and degrees of acts; the second Commandment does forbid the former, as I have proved in the other Tract, and I durst make the Doctor judge in this case; who hath often renounced all new sorts of Worship. Yet the Doctor likes not what I say, of the second Commandment; 
n. 6.  [It's 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, etc.] I will not send the Doctor to those two learned Catechists above mentioned; but to himself, who hath affirmed a principle, upon the second Commandment, which will fully conclude this point; which must be often repeated, to silence his confidence: this it is, [God is to be worshipped in a way peculiar to him, and appointed by him.] Then all Worship, not commanded by him, is forbidden; let the Doctor now go on and say, [Certainly none (no word sounds that way) unless every Ceremony devised by man, etc. not particularly under precept, be presently metamorphosed into a graven Image.] But the thing is proved sufficiently above, by Scripture and testimony of most approved Authors, to which I remit him. And now let him consider how well he hath vindicated his six reasons, for a good sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this one place.   

Sect. 17, 18. We have done with the first undertaking, etc.  
That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is well rendered by Superstition, by the Romanists, and by the learned and ever renowned Master Calvin, may easily be made good, from the definition of Superstition, given by the School-man, which is justified above; and by the description of it, by Mr. Calvin, which is this, [Vox ipsa Superstitio, etc. The word Superstition may seem to be so called, because not contented with the manner (of Worship) prescribed, it heaps up a superfluous heap of vain things.] Calv. Instit. l. 1. c. 12. n. 1. For Will-worship partakes of the definition, it is a vice contrary to Religion, in the excess, and is an addition of superfluous and vain Worship. And I said not Superstition and Will-worship are all one, (as he charges me to say;) but clearly otherwise, [Superstition or will-worship, 
p. 157. n. 6.  are more general then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Daemonum cultus, which is but one species of Superstition.] They differ as genus and species; all Will-worship is Superstition, but all Superstition is not Will-worship, strictly taken, as was discoursed above, ad. p. 41. n. 1. But if Will-worship be a species of Superstition, they that interpreted the word so, did but call the Species by the name of the genus, which is very ordinary. And that Superstition is more general than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is evident, because that's but one species of Superstition; there are many more given by the School-man, and himself above. But now we shall hear him distribute will-worship into species. [The truth is, 
n. 7.  that the general 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.] Here we have three sorts of Will-worship, Jewish, Heathen, Christian: The first uncommanded, the second, forbidden, the third not commanded. But, first, the Jewish out-dated Worship is forbidden, (so the Doctor said above p. 19 n. 32.) and so agrees with Heathen Will-worship. 2. The Christian, is no Worship, but acts, or circumstances of Worship commanded, and then it is no Will worship: upon this, he brings all to two species. [Will-worship, 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, first, Worship is either true or false, true, when commanded by God; false, when devised by men; that's Will-worship; and will he divide false-worship, into true or false, Christian or Heathen? 2. Are Christian or Heathen, the same with true or false? the one ill the other good? Is there no good Will-worship among the Heathens? no bad, among Christians? so it seems by the Doctor's words. 3. He gave us above six, (if not species 
* He calls them six species of Will-worship. p. 97. n. 14.  yet) notions of Will-worship, ad p. 96. n. 6. and now he brings them, first, to three, then to two, as if he were confounded, and knew not where to fix: And to speak properly, Will-worship hath no species, (though Superstition have) only there may be some particulars, as there are of false-worship, which the Doctor may call Individua, if he please, but not species, as ergo, Will-worship is Heathenish, Jewish, or Christian, this is, not a distribution into species, but in adjuncts, or subjects. Now true it is the Doctor takes Will-worship in a good sense, for true and lawful Worship, but I take it in an ill sense, for false worship, and the Doctor must not beg his sense, nor I mine; both must prove it, or relinguish it. And now let the Reader judge, who is in the right: I shall but propound this argument, and leave it to him; [If worship be therefore only true, because it is commanded by God; then all worship not commanded by God, devised by men, is false: But the Autecedent is most certain, the consequence also undeniable, to any reasonable man: let who will make out the conclusion.] But hear again, [The falseness consists in its being devised by man's will, 
p. 158. n. 10  not simply, but in opposition to Gods, i. e. when it is forbidden;] this we accept of, and say, all worship devised by man's will, stands in opposition to the will of God, and is forbidden: the Negative part of the second Commandment, is, [God will not be served, by any worship not prescribed by himself,] and no addition may by man be made to the rule of worship. The Doctor hath so long dreamed of uncommanded Worship, in contradistinction to forbidden Worship; as if Worship uncommanded by God (the same with devised by men) were not forbidden; when as it is therefore forbidden, because not commanded by God, as I am forced, by the Doctor's importunity to repeat too often. No says he, [What is forbidden, is more than not commanded.] It is so in the second Table, but in the first, of worship not commanded, and forbidden, is all one. The Doctor therefore supposes, what is not to be granted, when he says, 
n. 11.  [That worship which is supposed not to be forbidden, is resolved not to be false.] He must say, that worship devised by men, which is not forbidden, is not false: but that implies, that some worship devised by men, is not forbidden; which now he may see (if he will) to be false. [Gods not commanding (he says) implies his permission, and so a liberty allowed by God, etc.] If this were true, the Heathens, and Turks Worship were all lawful, for they are not commanded, ergo, permitted: He will say, [They are forbidden, which is more than not commanded.] This is not to be seen in that former proposition: but I close with him, and say, All worship not commanded, is forbidden. I conclude this Section, with a memento to the Reader, to take notice how much the Doctor hath forgot himself, to plead for Will worship, worship devised by men, which both is contrary to his own assertions heretofore; and presently again, (he pleads not for new sorts or kinds of Worship, not commanded by God) and to his present design, which is not (at least openly) to plead for will worship, but will-rites, ceremonies, circumstances of Worship. But just it is, that they which forget the truth, should forget themselves.   

Sect. 19 Another reason is, that among the Jews, etc.  
IN this Section, 
p. 160. n. 3.  the Doctor plainly confesses, that [his design, in his former Tract of Will-worship, was 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, etc.] And I propound the question; [not about a rite or circumstance or degree of commanded worship, but of worship itself, etc.] Who would not think we were both agreed? But then I ask, why hath the Doctor many times asserted, that I must and do state the question of uncommanded rites and circumstances; when I profess oft to the contrary, that [the question is not about a rite or circumstaace of worship, etc.] It may be said, where's then the difference? 
n. 4.  [Why (says the Doctor) should he misspend and lavish out his pains, delight in this impertinent severity, arraign and triumph over a poor innocent Tract, that never attempted in the least, to bring any new kind of worship into the Church?] I shall show briefly wherein we differ. 1. The Doctor confounds rites and ceremonies, with circumstances of Worship; sure I am amongst the Jews, 
So with Papists, Ritus colendi Deum. Salmeron supra.  all their Ceremonies were parts of Worship, (though all circumstances were not) hereupon some Divines have thought and said, any ceremony significant, is eo nomine, made a part of Worship. 2. It does appear, (and will more hereafter) that the Doctor does maintain some Will-worship to be good and lawful, that is, will-devised worship, not circumstances of Worship only. And this was the cause of my undertaking to confute that Tract of his, and I hope I have not (to others, at least) misspent and lavished out my time and pains. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
p. 162. n. 10  something hath been said above. I shall add only this, that at first it signified the Divine law only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, never being used for Ecclesiastical; but in process of time, the Ecclesiastical Canons were graced with that title: and the usurpation of more power to the Church then was meet, in matter of doctrine and worship, brought in by this misapplication, much Suporstition, because the Authority of the Church was held Divine, by the Spirit of God infallibly guiding her, as Papists now speak: Divinarum Sanctionum, that is, Ecclesiastical, said the Doctor, 
p. 83. n. 4.  in Englishing the words of Pope Leo: But the Doctor wisely waves the defence of those words of his; [we may justly conclude those actions justifiable, because not prohibited, and not only so, but also acceptable, and and the more acceptable for this voluntariness.] I answered (in this Section) in Worship, it will not justify a man, that it is not forbidden in particular, but rather that it is condemned because it is not commanded. To which I now add, that the Doctor deludes us, by general terms, actions, performances, etc. when he should say, worship is justifiable, because not prohibited, and not only so, but more acceptable, for the voluntariness. And being by me pointed to this mistake, he says nothing to it.   

Sect. 20.21. A third ground of the abuse of the word, etc.  
I Said the 18. and 23. verses of Col. 2. might easily be reconciled, the one respecting a new devised Worship, the other the reviving an old out-dated Worship. 
p. 163. n. 2.  To this he says, [The worship of Angels in the 18. verse is much more than will-worship, in the Diatribist notion of it, for uncommanded, will devised worship, pronounced unlawful, because not commanded: but Angel worship is forbidden.] Enough hath been said of the difference of uncommanded and forbidden worship, above. 
Heathenish forbidden, and so uncommanded worship: his own words. p. 157. n. 7.  I add now, to the present answer, first, If Angel Worship be forbidden, I hope that will imply, it is not commanded; and upon that notion was unlawful, that it was a will-devised worship, but more because it was forbidden, by the first Commandment. 2. So say I of these abstinences, they were both not commanded, (but will-devised worship) and also forbidden by the second Commandment. (For I cannot be flouted out of that answer.) 3. Let it be observed, that the Doctor plainly justifies uncommanded worship, devised by the will of man; making any worship lawful that is not forbidden: whereas (as hath oft been said) the uncommandedness of worship, makes it sinful and false: all worship being indeed forbidden, that is not commanded by God. 
n. 8.  And yet the Doctor says, [the fault of Angel worship, results from the unlawfulness of the 
* See my 23. s. Of Willw.  matter, which is forbidden in the first Commandment not from the voluntariness or uncommandedness of it.] This fallacy he would often put upon us, to make the fault lie upon one, when it lies upon both. 1. That it is not commanded. 2. That it is forbidden, that Worship which is not commanded, being ever forbidden.  
I cited words from Maimonides, brought by himself, and seeing no more cited by him, I thought fit to make use of it against him: The words are general, 
n. 3.  [That the error that brought in the greatest part of Idolatry, was, that men conceived and taught, that vain Worships, and Superstitions, were the will and pleasure of God.] Here the Doctor demands, [what I mean by vain Worships? 
n. 4.  doth he mean bare will devised Worship, uncommanded, which have no other crime in them but their uncommandedness?] I answer, I do mean will devised, uncommanded Worship; but I do not say, it hath no other crime, than the uncommandedness: for I know, it hath another fault, that it is forbidden. And that thus, the Affirmative part is, [God must be Worshipped only with his own Worship:] then, all will devised Worship is ill, because it is not commanded. The Negative part is, [No man must prescribe Worship to God:] then all will devised Worship is forbidden: should I teach the Doctor these principles? And these were the faults as of Angel Worship, so of those Abstinences, taught as Worship; and of any will devised Worship, what ever. What confusion, what injustice is in this? If Clemens did misapply and confound these two texts, v. 18. and 23. 
p. 165. n. 6.  he was cited by himself, & proved what I intended, that he thought them both as one. I argued, ad hominem there, rather than ad rem: But see how this great Admirer of the Fathers, can throw them by, when they do not please him, or fit his new notions. I need not pretend his reading of the text was true, but his Interpretation I may justify, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Humility in the 18. verse, he understood the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Humility in the 23. verse. The difference only being this, that what the Apostle expressed by two words in the one, he understood the same, in the composition of them in the other: and so do most Modern Divines understand them.  
The Doctor seems to distinguish of two sorts of uncommanded worship; 
p. 166. n. 8.  one that is uncommanded, but not forbidden; the other that is uncommanded, and also forbidden: Thus he says, [A spontaneous abstaining from meats, sometime, being in itself perfectly lawful, and so likewise Celibacie, 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 the other sort of uncommanded Worship, where the matter is under Interdict, the Worship of Angels, etc.] Where these things are observable. 1. That before, the Doctor seemed to make any Worship not forbidden, lawful: but now hath found a Worship uncommanded which is also forbidden. 2. He seems to make abstinence from meat and marriage one sort of uncommanded Worship, by opposing to it another sort of worship forbidden: either then, the Doctor makes that abstinence a sort, or part of worship, or he does not: If he do, than he contradicts himself, who had said. [He pleads not for any new kinds or parts of worship, but for the use of uncommanded ceremonies and circumstances.] p, 160. n. 4. But abstinence from meats and marriage, are neither ceremonies, nor circumstances; ergo, they are new kinds of Worship, which he hath oft disclaimed: If he do not make it a kind or part of Worship, how does he oppose against it another sort of uncommanded worship. 3. I have said and proved, all uncommanded worship, is under Interdict, is forbidden; and so unlawful. As for Fasting from meats, 
n. 9  sometimes, or Virginity in them that can receive it, no body rational speaks against it. But to make these parts of Worship, and states of greater perfection, preferring virginity to honourable marriage, (as Papists and the Doctor does) is justly by our Divines censured as superstitious, and will worship. And the Doctor might have spared his pains, in proving that which none denies, in his 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. numbers: but he delights, upon all occasions, to show his Reading.  
Only one thing is to be taken notice of, as remarkable, (says the Doctor,) 
n. 11.  [Alcibiades lived austerely, using nothing but bread and water, as before, so when he was in prison: this course of austerity, and severest abstinence was no way disliked, etc.] When as Attalus dissuades it, upon such realons, as served not only at that time, but always, (except when God calls to fasting and humiliation.) As 1. [That he did not well not to use the good creatures of God.] Which needed no other Revelation, (as is pretended) but what he had from the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4.3, 4. where he makes it a part of the Apostasy of after times, [To abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe, and know the truth; for every creature of God is good, etc.] I conjecture the Doctor's evasion: He (with Papists) will say, it's meant only of them that abstain from meats as unclean: it is indeed meant of such, but not only. For it's appliable also to those abstinences, Col. 2.23. which did not intent those only, that abstained from some meats, as unclean, (if at all) or imposed that abstinence as necessary by Divine command, (as the Doctor glosses it) but of those, who placed Religion and the Worship of God, in those austerities spoken of, in not sparing the body, that is, in afflicting and macerating the body, 
Abstinentiam induxerunt (Encratitae) ingrati existentes ei qui omnia fecit, Deo. Irenae. l. 1. c. 30.  by such austerities: as thinking it a service acceptable to, and more rewardable by God; as the Doctor does. Now to such it might be said, [You do not well, not to use the good creatures of God, who created them to be received with thanksgiving, etc. and you show yourselves unthankfully to God, and unnaturally cruel to yourselves.] That's the substance of Attalus first argument. 2. The other is, [That in so doing he would leave an example of scandal and stumbling to others, by weakening them, by like abstinences, making them unfit for suffering.] And I doubt not, but this and other like austerities, was the occasion of that Monastical and Eremitical severity, which was after taken up, and is so frequent in Popery. Those first holy men (charity bids me think) did only use them as exercises of Mortification, placing no Religion, or greater acceptation, or reward in them: but after times, did all these, as we see in Popery. And the Doctor is near the brim of this pit, when he pleads so much, for voluntary Austerities, as uncommanded Worship, as more commendable, acceptable, rewardable, p. 210. n. 27.  
That which remains in this Section of his, is but to note two things. 
p. 168. n. 15  1. That he still goes on with the conceit of the Gnostick abstinences, in his gloss on 1 Tim. 5.23. True it is, the Apostle in 1 Tim. 4.1. etc. Prophecies of such as the Gnostics were, and the Romanists now are, with this only difference, that the one sort absolutely condemned marriage in all, the other in their Votaries and Clergy only: 
Vid. Estium in locum.  But the very Papists themselves Interpret that text of the Manachees (sometime after) and of Ebion, near to, or in the Apostles times; and of Saturninus, and such like; and at last of their successors, the Gnostics: But the learned and reverend Master Cartwright, hath given the reason, [That the text might not be thought to smile at them, 
On Rhem. Test. in locum.  and condemn them in forbidding marriage (as also meats) to some sort of people, they seek out some others to fasten it upon; as sometimes thiefs and murderers, pretend to seek out the committers of that fault, that themselves may not be suspected.] And mark how Estius puts it off from Rome; [It's manifest the Apostle speaks of them, who should altogether, or absolutely condemn marriage, as evil and unlawful: and should reject some kind of meats, as unclean.] No doubt the Apostle speaks of such, but also of any, that should do the like, in a lesser degree, which Papists, for certain do; not only preferring Caelibate before it, as a state of greater perfection, but also defaming of marriage, with respect to some sorts of men, at least: witness those hase glosses of some of their Popes, to be seen in Doctor Hall, Honour of Married Clergy, l. 1. s. 4. The Doctor indeed does not comply with them in defaming of marriage; but he does in this, making Caelebate a more perfect state, and in the dedicating of it to God, etc. as a Will worship, that is, a part of Worship devised by the will of man, as is evident afore. 2. The other thing observable (and we shall meet with it often again) is, that he changes the state of the question, by changing the word, 
n. 16. See ad p. 151. n. 6.  from uncommanded Worship, [to uncommanded Performances (such were virginity, or fasting.] Whereas he made both of them Worship, a little before, n. 8. [Another sort of uncommanded Worship,] as there appears.   

Sect. 22, 23. You must (says he) observe these things, etc.  
THese two Sections of mine, are wholly waved by him, which yet concerned him to answer very much, and me and the Reader to have satisfaction therein. It is generally believed, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the 18. ver. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the 23. 
Vid. Est. in locum.  ver. are both one, a voluntary in worship of Angels, and voluntary Worship, in those abstinences: Papists are herein, better Interpreters, than the Doctor. The Apostle therefore, condemns both the Worship of Angels, and these abstinences made worship by men, because they are but Will worship. The Doctor confesses the former, the Worship of Angels, to be, [That crime of Superstition. s. 20. etc.] and to be called [Will-worship, or what we please; including an impious mistaken kind of Humility. Sect. 23.] Such than were these abstinences, if reason might prevail with the Doctor. It will be expected that he give an account of these Sections, in his next.   

Sect. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. The fourth occasion of the mistake (he says) is the use, etc.  
WHat was said of the two foregoing Sections, may be also said of these four; the Doctor says nothing to what I said against him, but repeats and refers his Reader to what he had said in his other Tract: or very little more, that needs to be taken notice of; I shall only note these few things. 
p. 170. n. 2.  1. He says, [the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it denotes superfluity of ceremonies, is not pleaded for by him,] yet in his 26. Sect. of Will-worship, says, [I cannot acknowledge that word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) is taken by Epiphanius, in an ill sense.] Surely then, either Epiphanius or the Doctor, must allow and plead for superfluity of ceremonies, for that's part of the word. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were good, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is bad; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having influence upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must needs in that respect be ill; will devised superfluous Ceremonies are evil, as well as will devised Worship: The will (he said) in such cases must bear the blame, as afore. 2. 
n. 3.  The fault than was not only that they taught them as doctrines (of God) and laying them as burdens on others (though if they did so, that was bad enough) but that they made them also parts of worship: [In vain no they worship me.] 3. Our Saviour taxing them, for these very things, their will-worship, 
n. 4.  and Superfluity of that worship, surely Epiphanius would not take it, in a good sense, to approve what Christ condemned. 4. The Doctor who had before made [the main crime of the Pharisees to be, 
n. 6.  their proud despising of other men, not so godly as themselves,] makes a secret retreat, and confesses, [hypocrisy was the Pharisees chief crime, and withal the fuel to their pride and despising of others,] as I had said; which I the rather note, because it is so rare for him to acknowledge any mistake, but rather to justify what he says. But says he, [doing some things not commanded, was no part of their hypocrisy.] Some things not commanded, is a blind; he should have said, some worship not commanded; for that our Saviour blames them: And the doing of some things not commanded, was the fruit (though no part) of their hypocrisy; the superfluity and supererogations of their Traditions, was the very mantle of their hypocrisy, 
p. 171. n. 8.  as I said. 5. As for the Asidaei. 1 Macc. 2.42. some read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Jews; others Aschidaei (as Junius) who were not of the Pharisees Sect; but notes (says he) those Profugos, that for Religion's sake were scattered here and there; for Aschid (says he) signifies diffusum: These are described, first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more of strength or valour, in Israel, and then well minded to the law. But the Pharisees were not such Warriors, that I read of: And he renders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui voluntariè adhaerebant legi, and such as fled from the wiced, ver. 43. These being zealous for their Law, their Religion, joined themselves to Mattathias. [Listed themselves voluntarily,] 
n. 9  (says the Doctor,) to defend the Law by Arms. And this every one that was able was bound to do, in that case: and then it was their duty, and no uncommanded performance; much less uncommanded worship. The sum is this, every one that was strong, and godly, well minded to the Law, as he was bound, did voluntarily list themselves under that Captain, to defend the Law: and this makes nothing for the Doctor's sense, of [volunteers to the Law,] much less for uncommanded worship. These indeed are commended, that they did so freely offer themselves to defend their Law, etc. Just as Zebulun and Naphtali in Deborahs'. song, Judg. 5.18. [A people that jeoparded their lives, unto the death, in the high places of the field.] But if the text be well considered, it makes nothing for voluntary performances, much less for uncommanded Worship. 
n. 10.  6. I cannot but observe one thing more, that the Doctor waves my 28. Sect. also, as to the substance of it, because he cannot answer it, viz. The progress of will worship in general, with the application of it to himself, and his party; both in the text and marginable reference; which he thinks not good to meddle with, in both places; and therefore passes it over in silence.   

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

Sect. 30. God commanded not David to build him a Temple, yet David's intention in that design is very acceptable, etc.  
THere was a threefold answer given by learned Chamier to this argument, 
p. 181, n. 2.  used by Bellarmine, (whom the Doctor is more ready to follow and defend, than any of our Orthodox Protestant Divines.) I named the two first, but insisted chief on the last. [It was not any part of Worship, but a Circumstance of Worship,] and so nothing to the present business; which is of parts of worship, such as those Free-will-offerings were asserted to be: the Temple or house which David was intended to build, was not to be a part of worship, or a place made by him, more Holy than other places; but (as I said) by accident, as it serves for the commodity, and convenience of the worshippers, and I instanced, in our Churches now. For they used to say, [Time and Place, are equal circumstances of Worship, and both equally Holy, or not Holy:] But he warily waves it, only saying, num. 8. [So is a Festival now, a time, as that (Temple) a place, and so equally a circumstance of worship.] Yet surely Time, that is, his Festival, is made more than a circumstance, even a part of Worship, more Holy, etc. as will appear hereafter; and I suppose, he hath the same opinion of some places, our consecrated Churches, though now he call them both, but circumstances of Worship. But to the point of David's intention; it was either absolute, or conditional; if conditional, that he would build an house, if God should allow, and warrant the business, so far it was commendable; but if it was absolute, Divines do not fear to say, it was unlawful; David might neither build, nor set out a place for the Temple, without God's direction, and leave. And it's most probable, that his intention was absolute, 
2 Sam. 7.5, 7.  and therefore he is in a manner checked for it by God, though his intention to do something for God, was by Indulgence accepted. And then, this example will afford no force for instituting Religious Ceremonies by men: which the Doctor calls, Will-worship, or Free-will-offerings. If they will say, they intent them conditionally, if God will allow them, let them produce that warrant, and we are satisfied: warrant, I say, not for circumstances of Worship, (which is yielded) but for their Will-worship, uncommanded Worship. Before than that this instance will serve the Doctor's turn, he must prove these things, first, That this Free-will-offering of David, was a part of Worship; for so they are asserted to be under the Law, and yet he will not be obliged to make good the parallel so far, for his Rites and Festivals. p. 186. n. 19.2. That David's intention was sure a pious intention, being absolute, (which pious intention he asserts, numb. 9) 3. That it was commended, and accepted by God; as it was absolutely intended by him. It was indeed approved by Nathan, ver. 3. but rashly, without consulting with God, and therefore both Nathan and David, are better informed, and in a sort rebuked for that resolution, to undertake such a business without command from God. If Nathan failed in his allowance of David's purpose, (as it's evident he did) than David also failed, in his too absolute purpose, which God after disallows. And thence we may raise this argument, [It was not lawful for David to purpose absolutely the building any Religious house for God's Ark, without God's special command, or warrant, therefore it is not lawful for men to institute Religious Ceremonies, without the same warrant.] I still say a Religious House, and Religious Ceremonies, which are thereby put into a state of Religion, and so parts of Worship; which mere circumstances are not: and such the Doctor says, he makes time and place; but indeed makes them parts of Worship, as we have often said. Hence it is, that n. 2. he talks of uncommanded acts of Piety, and n. 9 makes david's intention, a Pious intention; and being uncommanded, an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Will-worship of God, parallel to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in debate. He must not mean it of an Imperate act of Piety, or Religion, for that is no part of Worship, and may be in a civil thing or virtue: as acts of Charity, visiting the sick, etc. are by St. James called, pure Religion: But of an elicit act of Piety, which is itself a part of Religion or Worship: but than it holds not parallel with his Will-worship, which is denied to be any part of Worship. As for example, if a company of people wanted a convenient place to meet in, for Religious performances; Aquila, or Philemon, accommodate them with a room in their house, or some good devout Centurion, builds them a Church: This were an act of Piety, not elicit, but imperate, which doth not make the place a part of Religion or Worship, but an accommodation to Worship.  
The instance of Paul, not taking Hire of the Corinthians, when he might, etc. I said, was as little to the purpose, for it was not in a matter of Worship, 
p. 184.2.  but an action of common life, and also a due debt: For the first, he answers, [He no where said, it was in an action of common life, it is misreported, etc.] Let him review, his 30, s. of Will-worship, and he will find, that he says, [There be many particulars, both in the Worship of God, and in actions of common life.] Particulars he means of Free-will-offerings: Now the first thing he would have observed in them, was, [That they were a part of the Worship of God,] s. 29. to which he ought to have confined himself, and not to go out into actions of common life; which have no plea, to be parts of Worship; and this instance of maintenance, I took, and still take to be one of them, and not to his purpose. What says he to it? [1. He appeals to myself, Whether I can doubt, whether an Apostles exercising his office, be not an act of Worship.] Truly, I did not formerly doubt it, but the Doctor hath said something to make me scruple it; for he seems at least to deny, that preaching by a minister, is any part of Worship; Hearing and Preaching are relates, and either both, or neither parts of Worship. 
See p. 131. n. 14.  But [Hearing of Sermons, is not (says he) any acknowledged branch of Worship.] Some body would hence infer, [Than Preaching is no branch of Worship.] It may be he will say, Apostolical (and perhaps Episcopal) preaching, is a part of Worship, but not of Inferior officers: If he will say so, let him enjoy his own opinion. My answer is otherwise; I meant that maintenance, and so refusing or receiving it, was a matter of common life, and not a matter of Worship, whereof we speak. But mark his inference; [And consequently any (but) circumstance thereof, a circumstance of Worship.] Who can once doubt, but any circumstance of Worship, is a circumstance of Worship; there is no great depth in this: But we are speaking of Free-will-offerings, which were parts of Worship; and he tells us of a circumstance of Worship; such was Paul's cloak, when he wore it in Preaching, and his cap, etc. circumstances of Worship: yet more, [Paul's not receiving hire, was either an action, or in an action of Worship, or both; and so surely a Free-will-offering.] I list not to make any inference upon this, but leave it to the Reader.  
That his refusing his hire at that time and place, was a due debt, 
n. 4.  I proved from learned Chamier, and from the Scripture itself: But our new glosses, will not down with this learned Antiquary. He had rather run into error with some Ancients, then hold and speak truth with Modern Divines. Let us hear their, and his gloss; the text is, 1 Cor. 9.17. For if I do it willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, a dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me; i. e. what is my reward then? etc.] The Comment is this, [The preaching of the Gospel was committed to him, and was under precept, and so no Free-will-offering of his: That is his meaning when he saith, if I do this willingly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a volunteer (so saith Theophilact.) If I had not been Commissionated to Preach, but had done it of myself; if I did Preach the Gospel without any command, & so no 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 voluntarily, if I am Commissionated to Preach, and so my Preaching be an act of obedience to a plain command, and so necessary, ver. 16. then all that can be said of me, is, being trusted with a stewardship, I discharge it; it is manifest, that I do it not spontaneously, but I perform my Lords command, etc. And so there is nothing of excellence in this, this will bring me no reward: what in this whole matter shall bring me in any reward? To which he answers, that Preaching the Gospel, I do it freely without making it chargeable to the Auditors, that I make not use of my power that I have in the Gospel, i. e. the power of receiving maintenance from others, etc.] This indeed is the gloss of some Greek Fathers, and only two Papists follow them; Gagnaeus, and Cajetane, as Estius tells me, 
In locum.  who throws off this Interpretation, as too violent and distorted, for very good reasons. But take the sum from him, more concisely; [By one willing, they understand him that doth it, having no command, but doth it spontè, & of his own proper motion: whom they say, to have a reward, not any one, due to one that Preacheth the Gospel, but much and great above others that took their hire: the unwilling they interprets to be him, that doth it upon command, and enjoined dispensation, although he do it willingly and from his heart.] Now take the absurdities that follow upon this Interpretation which the Doctor follows.  
1. It supposes that Paul, or any man, might have taken upon himself the office of Apostleship, or to Preach the Gospel, without a commission; (contrary to Scripture, Rom. 10. and the Doctors own principles:) [If I had not been Commissionated to Preach, but done it of myself.]  
2. It makes Paul, or any man, that does so, a volunteer in Worship, to set upon uncommanded Worship, such is the Office of Preaching, an act of Worship, n. 2. afore: which also the Doctor denies, to set up a new kind of Worship, without command.  
3. It must then be said (which is Estius observation) that Paul and all the Apostles, Preached the Gospel, invitos, unwillingly. Yea, the Angels and Men, what ever they do by command of God, to do it unwillingly; nay, Christ himself as man, to have Preached the Gospel, and done what ever he did in the flesh for our salvation, unwillingly; because he did all upon his Father's Commandment: which how absurd it is, who sees not?  
4. He makes the rest of the Apostles labour in the Gospel, though willingly and with all their hearts, worthy of no reward; because they took their hire of their Auditors: or at least, no great reward, as they may expect that Preach freely. [This (says the Doctor) would be rewardable in me; the other will bring me no reward.] [What is then my reward? that is (says the Dr.) what in this whole matter shall bring me in any reward? the answer is, that Preaching the Gospel; I do it freely, without charge to the people.] But Estius answers otherwise, [How did Paul deny himself a reward, if he took hire of them? Thus, he that without care of the success of the Gospel, & scandal of the weak, burdens his hearers with charge; he surely Preaches the Gospel unwillingly, (& so loses his reward:) For he (as he had said afore,) Preaches unwillingly, who Preaches it out of fear, and he who doth it, not loving the Gospel, but his own profit by the Gospel, etc.] Yea, Chrysost. the first that hinted this Interpretation, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (for Theophylact follows him at heels:) Yet says, that he that preacheth the Gospel upon command, shall have a reward; (which the Doctor denies,) though not so great as he that does it without command. In locum.  
5. It makes Paul to teach works of Supererogation, (which Papists plead from this text, thus understood) which merit greater reward, for an uncommanded performance, (as the Doctor phrases it oft) then for an act done upon command; and this we shall hear the Doctor confidently assert hereafter. p. 229. n. 14.  
6. Add this absurdity to the rest, that the Doctor here jumps with the Jesuits, in expounding those words, ver. 5. of this Chapter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of some Christian woman, that attended and ministered to the Apostles; a sister, a woman; not as Protestants, a sister, a wife: 
Vide Chamier. T. 3. l. 16. c. 12. s. 19 etc.  which as it overthrows the Apostles scope, which was to show his liberty to be chargeable to them; whereas if he had led about a woman, to bear his charges, this plea were impertinent: so this Interpretation of the Jesuit, is wittily and sharply chastised by a learned hand, Doctor Hall, Hon. of Marr. Clerg. 
l. 1. s. 26.  to whom I refer him.  
But I attend him further, 
p. 185. n. 5.  [Although this was not observed by Cephas and other Apostles, ver. 5. Yet sure Cephas is not conceived to have sinned thereby, but 'tis positively said, It was lawful for all, v. 7, 11, 14.] All this is true, but was it not lawful for Paul as well as for them? did not he take wages of other Churches, and perhaps of this Church at other times? yet did he not sin, but this would abate of his boasting, and rejoicing, over these that did take hire: Had he never taken hire of any Churches, this had made him differ from the rest, and this had been, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Chrysost. speaks, a virtuous action of his own choice, and matter of great excellence, in the Doctor's language, and had been a place for boasting, as he speaks. [Paul counts and calls this matter of rejoicing, or boasting, in respect to the reward, which he was allowed to expect from God for it.] But let's here Estius his gloss of those former words, that the other Apostles sinned not, etc. [All of them, had not the same causes, to do as Paul did; but there's no doubt, but they also did abstain from the use of that power, where the spirit, and reason, dictated abstinence to them. As Paul when those causes ceased, did not refuse hire, no more than they, as among the Macedonians and others.] Judge, Reader, which is the Papist, which the Protestant, and which is the better Interpreter. And as for Paul's boasting and rejoicing in it, as more virtuous, and rewardable; it savours not of Paul's spirit: For first, It's clear against our Saviour's rule, [When you have done all, say you are unprofitable servants, we have done but what we were commanded to do,] nothing to boast of. If the Doctor shall say (as in effect he does say,) [When we have done all that's commanded, there is no cause to boast, but if do more than is commanded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as chrysostom and Theophylact speak, than a man may boast, and for that reason, expect a greater reward.] Surely, our Saviour did not think, (however some Fathers speak) that a man may do more than is commanded, above the command of God, or that he could do all that is commanded; but suppose, you could yet say, but unprofitable servants. 2. It's contrary to Paul's own Doctrine, who every where makes the reward of eternal life, to be designed to Faith and Grace, not to Works, purposely to exclude boasting, Rom. 3.27. [Where is boasting then? it is excluded: by what Law? Of Works? No, but by the Law of Faith.] And again, Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherein to glory, but not with God. 
Contra: what place for glorying? upon this reason: It is a work of God's good grace and strength, in us: and than what place for gloryings? p. 224. n. 3.  [But these men, give Paul, and themselves leave and liberty to boast, for a work done without, or above a command. [To preach the Gospel, (for hire) is a precept, and so a debt, no great matter of excellence or boasting in it; but to Preach it freely, is the honour of my will, and hath a greater reward, and in that respect there is matter of boasting.] What Papist could say more? 3. Nay some Papists say less; Nec verò convenit Paulinae modestiae, etc. [It beseems not Paul's modesty, to promise himself a greater reward and glory with God, than the rest should receive, who preached the Gospel sincerely, though they took hire; especially seeing, that concerned them also, which he said above, ver. 12. To give no offence or hindrance to the Gospel of God.] Estius, in locum. 4. But yet further, Paul himself makes it a duty, to Preach freely, when just occasion is offered; for so he speaks to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20.34, 35. [You yourselves know, that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so labouring, ye ought to support the weak.] So labouring, ye ought, which implies a duty, 
See 1 Thes. 2.9 & 2 Thes. 3.7, 6, 9 p. 186. n. 6.  where the people are poor and weak, unable to supply their Minister with his hire, he may not exact it. And this will bring me to the next thing enlarged by the Doctor.  
And that is, that the Fathers seem to call it, a voluntary act of Piety, and the highest degree of munificence, above command, etc. But this must be candidly understood (as I said) above the general command; [That they that Preach the Gospel, shall live of the Gospel:] but not above a special call, by circumstances happening. [Things that are restrained by circumstances (says learned Chamier) are not therefore said to be unlawful: nay, 
Tom. 3. l. 21. c. 21. p. 818. s. 75.  are therefore said to be lawful, because they are not restrained but by certain circumstances.] It is the Apostles own Rule, [All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.] And it is another maxim of Divines, Quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet: [Whatever is not expedient (at this time or place) to be done, is unlawful to be done;] but than it cannot be above all command. This will not down with the Doctor. [They that received hire, were not faulty (says Chrysost. which they must be, if bound by any special call (as the Diatribist from Chamier, but against the whole contexture of the place) to do what they did.] n. 8. There is no great sense in these words: should he not rather have said, They were faulty, if they were bound by any special call, not to do as they did: that is, not to receive hire, which they did receive. However the reason is not beseeming the Doctor's strength: might they not be faultless in receiving hire, where the people were able; and yet faulty, when they were poor, (which is the special call) if they did claim it? But the Apostle himself clears it, to be faulty for him, in that case, to have taken hire of them; [That I abuse not my power in the Gospel.] So most Interpreters render it: But the Doctor loves to swim against the stream, and renders the words, that I use not my power, etc. make no use of it. He knows the word signifies sometime, and often, to abuse, as well as to use; why must it needs be taken here in the latter sense? because it will better fit the Doctor's design, of uncommanded performances, or highest acts of Piety, above command. I could refer him to Chamier, 
Ubi supr. s. 78.  to take his answers to Bellarmine urging this very sense of the word; and vindicating the authorities by him brought for it, with this proem: Audiat Bellarminus Jesuita, suorum Jesuitarū judicium: Where he reckons up Salmeron, Justinian, and and others not Jesuits, Cajetane, Thomas, Lyranus, and the Lovanienses; who all render it by, abutar, abuse; and give reasons for it; take one, Fuisset enim, illud abuti potestate, etc. [For that was to abuse his power, if he had required his hire, and in that thing, had derogated from the authority of the Gospel:] So Salmeron: so the rest, to the same purpose. But the Doctor citys Scripture for his sense of the word, 1 Cor. 7.31. [Using the world, as if they used it not.] So he reads it, but ours and others, as not abusing it: And if the Apostle had intended his sense; he would have kept the same word as he did before, in the other instances, and have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But that's but a conjecture; let's try if from the scope and context of the Apostles words, it may not appear, that it must be rendered, that I abuse not my power. [If it was a sin for the Apostle, in that case to have taken hire, than he had abused his power to take it; and consequently he intended to say, If he had made the Gospel chargeable to them, he had abused his power.] But the Antecedent is true, the consequence undeniable;] ergo, The Antecedent I prove thus; [If his taking hire of them, in that case, had been to the hindrance of the success of the Gospel, than he bade sinned, in taking of it.] But so it had been: This I prove from verse 12. [We have not used this power, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (the simple verb) but suffer all things, (the loss of our hire) lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ.] Implying, that if he had used that power, he had hindered the Gospel of Christ: which certainly had been a sin. I know not what the Doctor can say to this; 
Chamier, ubi supra. s. 80, 81. etc.  unless with Bellarm. he tell us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [there signifies, Interruption, not a Scandal: and so not to be a sin, to take hire, though some Retardation of the Gospel, had followed;] which if he say, let him there see his answer, and more with it. But see the luck of it, (his own phrase) he that differs from Estius in his true Interpretation of this text; yet agrees with him in the false consequence, and abuse of it; to prove works of Supererogation; only the Doctor dare not speak out, as the other doth. Estius asks this question; 
In locum.  [How Paul, by not taking wages, did a work of supererogation, if he was bound by charity, not to take his hire, lest he should scandalise the weak, or leave an occasion to the false Apostles of glorying against him?] Hear his answer, [A work of supererogation is so called, not, that when it is done, hath none, or the least obligation by the Law of Charity; but that which simply and nakedly considered, is not under precept, but a counsel: although it may by circumstances, receive some greater or lesser obligation, etc.] As naked and poor an answer as can be: having said before, [That he should abuse his power, if he did receive his hire, indifferently of all to whom he preached.] And withal, holding that works of supererogation are works done by counsel without and above command. If it have the least obligation by a command, it is a debt, and not a work of supererogation: and saying, that it may receive sometimes a great obligation, by circumstances. But what can a man do, when the cause he maintains is naught? Yet he is more ingenuous than the Doctor that will allow no bond of Charity to oblige him, or any scandal to the weak, or fear of the false Apostles boasting against him, or any circumstances to make it faulty, by any special call, for Paul to receive hire; but makes it above all command; that is in the Popish gloss, a work of supererogation: which, how the Doctor will avoid concurrence with, we shall consider ere we have done.   

Sect. 31. The like may be answered for the other instance, he might (says he) have abstained from going up to Jerusalem, etc.  
BEfore I consider his answer, I think it not amiss to consider again my own words: [The like may be answered, etc.] Like to what? like as I answered to the former instance; [That it is not in a matter of Worship, but of common life;] and so not to the purpose, which of Worship: which the Doctor clearly waves, to take notice of. But I shall add, what I now consider better of, that Paul's going up to Jerusalem, at that time, was not arbitrary, but necessary, and so a debt; for which consult the former chap. Act. 20.20. [And now behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me.] This was told him again by a Prophet, cap. 21.11. at Caesarea: when he was upon his journey to Jerusalem, bound before by the Spirit: whereupon carnal friends dissuade his going up: This he courageously refuses to hearken to: [What mean you to weep, etc. I am ready not to be bound only, which he was told of before; but to die, etc.] I ask now, might Paul thus bound, lawfully have avoided that danger? would, Matth. 10.23. have justified this? If not, (as is now plain) Paul had he refused to go up, had sinned against an obligation upon his Spirit, by the Spirit of God; and then this could be no Free-will-offering. And now I shall briefly consider, what he says to my other answer; 
p. 188. n. 2.  [By the general allowance, he might have fled; yet if he should have refused to suffer, with retarding of the Gospel, he had surely sinned.] Can the Doctor deny this, that it is a sin to retard the Gospel? No, he cannot; and therefore answers two ways, first, [His not going, when he knows, he shall suffer, is no refusing to suffer, but a diverting only at that time.] True indeed, if at that time he had not a special call to suffer; which he had, as was said afore; and was supposed in my answer; then he had refused to suffer, 
n. 5.  and surely sinned against that Rule of his lord [Let him (when called) take up his Cross.] 2. [His not going up (says he) was no way the retarding of the Gospel; only a reserving of himself for more service, etc.] What it was, we inquire not, but what it might have been, if in some cases he should have refused to suffer; and in this case, when he was not only bound in spirit to go up, but told by a Prophet, [Thus shall the Jews bind this man at Jerusalem, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles,] which presupposes a tie of going up. Now for Paul, in such a concourse of people to seem but to be unwilling to suffer, might have been a discouragement to the Disciples; which would have been a retarding of the Gospel: And therefore he both shakes off the temptation of his friend, (as Christ did that of Peter, master favour thyself) and also professes his willingness to suffer more, than they feared; [I am ready to die for the name, etc.] Which would put much life and spirit into his followers. As for Christ's, and Paul's diversions of dangers, and reserving themselves, for further service, and a fit time, it was according to Rule, when they had no call to suffer, and it is as much against Rule, to detract or refuse to suffer, when there is a special call. The only objection that I can perceive, is that in the fourth verse. where some [said to him, through the spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem,] Which may seem a countermand to that, Cham 20.20. Where Paul was bound in the Spirit to go up to Jerusalem. The best resolution of this seeming contradiction I can meet with, is, either that of reverend Beza, on the fourth verse, [They foretold by the spirit, what dangers awaited him, as Prophets, and by their humane affections deterred him from going up,] as those did also, verse 12. Or that of the Doctor himself, numb. 5. [Not that I think, the Spirit, either by them (in the fourth) or by Agabus, (in the eleventh,) 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, etc.] This is something near to Beza's Interpretation. But when he adds, [Leaving it free for him to go or not to go,] and the rest that follows, I shall not consent unto it: Sure I am he was bound in the Spirit, to go up; and the Doctor says, He does not think, the Spirit did dissuade his going up, ver. 4, or 11. and then Paul was bound to go up, and so no Free-will-offering. And so much for the third instance.   

Sect. 32. The next of works of mercy, that though they be commanded in general, yet the quantum is not defined, etc.  
TO which, the Doctor adds two considerations more; I shall not trouble myself with them; but only note some few things very briefly. First, I observe whence the Doctor learned his Doctrine of Will-worship, 
p. 191. n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  [his over-measure-performances, more than the Law exacted.] Namely either from the old Asidaei, or Pharisees, of whom our Saviour says, [In vain do they Worship me;] or from the Papists, who talk much of uncommanded services, and works, 
n. 3.  above commands, and works of supererogation. 2. The Apostle gives no command to the Corinthians concerning their measure of their liberality to the poor. 1. Because he knew not their estates. 2. Had not power to dispose of them. 3. Alms should be free, though a necessary duty in general; as the Macedonians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of their own accord did willingly contribute to the necessity of the poor. But when he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above their power, as if they gave more than they were able to spare; this is a strain of the text; yet three times used by the Doctor. Once here, [exemplarily liberal, above what they were well able to do.] And again n. 8. [Willingly liberal above their power.] And once more, p. 206. n. 12. [Liberal of their own accord, above their power.] But the words in the Original import no such thing, that they were liberal, much less, liberal above their power; but thus they are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which Beza, and we in English, translate thus, [For to their power (I bear record,) yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves, praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, etc.] They were willing to their power, yea, and beyond their power: that is, their will was greater than their power; and beyond their power. But the Dr. would have us believe they were liberal above their power, and gave more than they were able; which as it is a kind of contradiction, so it is against the rule of Charity, which (all say) gins at home. [Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,] not above thyself; that's an excess in Charity. But this gloss fits the Doctor's opinion well; that Free-will-offerings are under no command, and so under no Rule. But come to his answers to me.  
I said, it was answered in part, by what was said afore. [It is not the question, which is of Worship, not of actions of civil life.] He says, first, 
p. 192. n. ●….  [An answer in part, is no satisfactory answer, and so this needs not to be considered.] But if I had listed to stand upon it, this was a full answer, when it was quite beside the question. 2. He says, [There is a parity of reason, from one act of Christian performance to another.] Mark how he waves the question, by putting in performance, instead of Worship: There is no parity of reason, from an act of Charity, a civil performance; to an act of Worship, a Religious performance. What ever there may be in Alms, there may be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, somewhat of Worship above the Law; yet the Doctor says, There may, by Analogy, be the same, in matters of Christian Worship, as in matter of charity,] which is one principal ground of his so many mistakes. 3. But then another evasion: [This of works of mercy is generally defined to be in a Christian performance, (how warily) an act of Worship, set in the front of such, Matt. 6.1. 
* See infr. p. 195. n. 11 That rule seems to have a propriety to that particular time: and is not a rule for all other times.  appointed to be exercised on the Lord's day (as a work of the day,) 1 Cor. 16.2. styled by Paul, a Sacrifice, Phil. 4.18, etc.] But, first, why in a Christian performance? is not an act of mercy by an Heathen, an act of Worship, as well as by a Christian? 2. A good man, a Christian, is merciful to his beast, is that also an act of Worship? 3. Is the work of mercy, Matth. 6.7. an act of Worship, because it is set in the front of such? why, he knows, that Protestants deny Fasting, which is one of them, to be a part of Worship, but an help or circumstance of worship: yet that is nearer to worship, then works of mercy. 4. Appointed to be exercised on the Lord's day; but is it not a work of any day, as well. 5. Styled a Sacrifice; but sure not properly, but allusively; as an imperate act of Piety, not elicite; as was said above: what's this, but a Chaos of confusion, to jumble the two Tables together, Worship and Charity. 6. But [to remove all scruple, he wishes that after the custom of the primitive Apostolic Church, this Alms be presented to God in the Sacrament, and then as certainly, it will be a branch of Christian Worship; and his instance shall be set to that, etc.] But this is as weak as the former; no act of Charity, when ever, or how ever done, can properly be a branch of Worship; unless he will confound the two Tables of the Law. He said before, it was a work of the Lords day, why may not the Day, as well as the Sacrament, make it a branch, or an act of Worship. I hope all acts of mercy on the Sabbath, watering a beast, or pulling him out of a pit, yea, or visiting the sick, is not thereby made an act or branch of Worship; especially when that Time itself, is by the Doctor, made but a circumstance of Worship. And now we proceed to the next.  
To my further answers, he replies, first, 
p. 193. n. 5.  [The question is certainly this, whether ceremonies and festivals in a Church are criminous, if they be not commanded by God.] No, his conscience can tell him, this is his grand and gross mistake; the question is of Will-worship, like to the Free-will-offerings, which were parts or degrees of commanded Worship; which his Ceremonies and Festivals are here again denied to be; and called circumstances, not acts of Worship. But his alms, were in the last number, made certainly branches of Worship: sacrifices, acts of Worship. What interfeering is here? 2. [The reason is the same of circumstances and degrees; if then uncommanded degrees may be lawful, uncommanded circumstances must be lawful also.] Still the former mistake, that there is the same reason of circumstances, and degrees of Worship; when as degrees of Worship (such were those Free-will-offerings) were Worship, acts, and branches of Worship; but so are not circumstances. 3. The next is founded on the same mistakes, that either alms is a branch of Worship, or that there is the same reason, for Worship, and for Charity, both which are denied and disproved. 4. The same answer may serve to this; Worship and Charity, are ill compared. But I add, the degrees of alms, are generally commanded, with respect to men's abilities, and opportunities; but so are not his Will-worship. The utmost degree of mercy, in those cases, is not uncommanded, though it cannot easily be defined: for it must be resolved, by abilities and necessities; which is not easy to determine, either how much I am bound to give, without defect, without excess; or what is the necessity of the receiver of it; as I must give according to my ability, (wherein we are apt to deceive ourselves) so I must not give to the prejudice of myself, or family, or others that need; which yet is sometime done, for vainglory, and hope to merit, by Papists, and others.  
The horns of his Dilemma are easily broken, 
n. 7. p. 194.  or turned against the wall: I say, 1. His Will-worships for which he pleads, uncommanded Worship, are under no command, to be done, but under prohibition, not to be done. 2. I think, there is no high degree of mercy, not the highest, that he will pitch on, but it is commanded, in cases aforesaid, the mercy itself is under a special command, the degree under a general. As God hath prospered a man, as opportunity is offered, by necessities of the poor, etc. But the Doctor is still dreaming of acts of Piety and Charity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above any command; of which more ere long. 3. I said, (by the Doctors grant) a man may offend in his Charity, in excess, in defect; then there is a middle rule, which binds men from both the extremes: which resolved on, makes it a debt, and so no Free-will-offering. 
p. 194. n. 8.  He replies, [He prevented that, by setting the instance, of a proportion exceeding that which is defined a duty.] But this begs the question, that it may (easily) be determined, what is the utmost, that we are bound to do; the maximum, or the minimum quod sic, which must be determined by circumstances, as afore, and that very hardly: Let himself tell us his mind in this; [The truth is, such a middle rule cannot be produced.] 
n. 9  Then say I, he cannot set a proportion, exceeding that, which cannot be defined a duty: It cannot be done, but by particular circumstances, which require great wisdom and judgement. But says he, [If that which is done, be more than that which we are bound to, it cannot transgress in the defect.] So if we give less than we are bound to, it cannot transgress in the excess: yet both defect and excess, in virtues, are faulty. And I pray, If a man give more than he ought, is it not an excess? if less than he ought, is it not a defect? Did he not say, [It's possible, in Charity to offend both ways?] But that cannot be, if it be impossible there should be any excess, (as he expressly says) in giving more than we are bound to. Is not Charity a Virtue, standing in the midst between two extremes? Then any deviction on either side, is strictly considered, sinful. Peccare est tanquam transilere lineam, said he: Yet (says he) [There is an allowance in the New Testament of selling all, and giving to the poor, Acts 4.] He might as well have said, there is a command of Christ himself, to the young man, To sell all and give it to the poor; and a promise annexed. But than it had been a duty, and no Free-will-offering, which would not have fitted the Doctor's design. Sure there was something extraordinary in that Acts 4. Either some special motion of the Spirit, or some present exigences of the Church, or honour of the Gospel, that caused that Charity: for we read of none, that after that time, or the like, ever did follow them: till the Papists and such like took it up; whom whether the Doctor will justify or no, I know not: if he would undertake it, I believe he cannot prove it. If then, they had a special call; it was a duty, and no Free-will-offering.  
But supposing the middle rule cannot be produced, (as he said) n. 9 he will make a double use of it. 1. [If it cannot, then is this an evident proof, that there are no such middle points, the variation from which is always criminous.] This is some of the Doctor's new Divinity, and Morality; do not his Ethics, tell him, that Virtue is the middle betwixt two extremes? How can he know when he exercises a virtue, if there be no such middle point? And in Divinity, does our ignorance, that cannot easily settle the middle, excuse us from crime, if we miss it? But worse still. 2. [If it 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, and so no duty Universally obligatory.] This is right the Doctor. How gentle a Confessor, and easy a Casuist would the Doctor be. If it be not easily known, when we sin, (who can understand his errors?) we are exempted from duty, in obeying such commands: such as are ignorant, are not obliged by them. Because we cannot do an act of virtue, without defect, or excess, does not the command of God bind us, to avoid both? If ignorance would excuse, men would affect it, to free themselves from duty. But though it be hard, it's possible to find that middle point; Adam in innocence could find it, (if he could as well have kept it) and our blessed Saviour did both find and keep it, and hath revealed enough for us to find it, if we had but will or grace to seek it. And the truth is, it's easier for us to find it, then to keep it, when we have found it. Strange it is to me, that the Doctor should say, 
p. 195. n. 10  [There is no ground in the Gospel, for defining or to determine the middle rule which constitutes a debt.] The Gospel and law both, presuppose that middle rule, when they say, [Turn not to the right hand, nor the left, let thine eyes look straight forward: make straight steps to your feet: walk exactly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, go to the pitch of the rule, etc.] But then he will evade by another loophole: The truth is, that this middle rule consists not in an indivisible point, but in a latitude, wherein there are many degrees, but all within the rule of allowance, though not of precept, etc.] This cannot be true, in the rigour of the Law, of which we speak, (for we speak of things under, or not under command.) The Law requires exact obedience, to the middle point of perfection, and knows of no latitude of degrees, or of any allowance; but [do this and live, or not, and die. Cursed is he that continueth not in all things, etc.] Allowance is a privilege of the Gospel, which gives a latitude of acceptance, of what we can do, and pardons, what we cannot do: but that very pardon and allowance, argues inconformity to the Law; and so a duty or debt, not performed or paid: which argues again, it was within the rule of precept, as well as under the rule of allowance. And if (as here again it's said) a man may be too parsimonious on the one side, or prodigal on the other, and go to far; both these are breaches of the rule. But if neither the Doctor nor his Scholar can find this middle rule, this straight line, let not their ignorance hope to escape, and make sins, no sins, because they cannot tell, when they are beside the line.  
True it is, 
n. 11.  [that every degree doth not bind every man, so as to make that degree a debt or duty in that man.] But the reason is not, because there is a latitude of virtue, in the Law; but because every man hath not, the same abilities, or opportunities to show mercy. He knows, there are laws, that bind some men, that bind not others: the rich, [charge them that are rich, to be rich in good works, etc.] not the poor, etc. but those abilities and opportunities supposed, the highest degree, pro hic & nunc, is to them, under precept, and so a duty. And he knows also, that he made that text, 1 Cor. 16 2. an appointment by Saint Paul, [That man should give, as God prospers them:] In his Pract. Catech. and elsewhere; as above n. 4. Which now he evacuates, by saying, [That rule seems to have a propriety to that particular time, of great distress and famine, and is not a rule for all other times.] Let him agree with himself; I needed not to have followed him thus far, but to give the world satisfaction. It might have been enough for me to have said, [If there may be a Free-will-offering in degrees of Charity to men, yet there may be no Worship, nor any degrees of that Worship to God, which is not commanded.] And this may serve, (with that said afore) to take off his cases put in numb. 12, & 13. Only I shall say, Let him put what cases he will, the middle rule being either impossible to be produced (as he said numb. 9) or not easily to be done, as there he says; he might justly scruple whether he do not offend some way or other, though neither he nor I, be able to say, when and where he went beside the rule; because it's very possible, and too easy, to go out into the excess or defect, but very difficult and uneasy to keep to the rule.   

Sect. 33, 34. As for his instance of Prayer, for the manner, or frequency, etc. we answer very briefly, etc.  
HE grants my answer to this, to be very brief, and needed not to be longer, 
p. 197. n. 2.  [yielding him in few words, the whole cause: for if Gestures and Times be free, than Ceremonies and Festivals are so too, etc.] Truly then may I say, he hath yielded me in few words, the whole cause: For the question is not of circumstances of Worship, time, place, etc. But of Worship itself. If he will grant me, (as he hath and must) that uncommanded Worship is unlawful, I shall yield to him, that uncommanded circumstances are free and lawful; due cautions being observed. I never quarrelled his Festivals, as mere Circumstances of Worship, but as they are made by some, (and he knows, whom) parts of Worship; this I have often professed, and he sometimes confessed, to be my true stating of the question; but oftener again denied it.  
But he says, I make it intricate [by involving, 
n. 3.  and confounding these two things together; placing the Worship of God in them, and pleasing God by them, which are two distant things.] The things may be distant in themselves, but as I meant them, they meet too oft in the same person: For thus my words stand; [The Doctor defends Worship devised by the will of man, and not commanded by God; which if he will maintain to be lawful, and place the Worship of God in them, or pleasing of God by them, I know not how he will avoid compliance with Papists, etc.] Having said as much before, [If a man should make any one way (of gestures, time, place, etc.) necessary, any one more holy, more efficacious, more acceptable to God: no doubt it would be in him Will-worship.] To all which, his compliance with Papists, in making some of them necessary more holy, etc. he wisely says just nothing; which concerned him not a little: Besides the distance that is in the instance of Prayer, which is a part of Worship, under command; and his Will-worship, which he calls uncommanded Worship. But [he that defends (he says) the use of the humblest gestures in Worship, & affirms them to be more acceptable to God then either the less humble gesture, or those which have no humility at all in them, doth not yet place Worship in them.] Gestures that have no humilty at all in them, ought not to be brought into comparison with gestures of Prayer, which are presupposed to be humble: yet none in particular is said to be more humble; or any used by any Saint of God, in Scripture, said to be less humble; yet are there many expressions of them; standing, fitting, kneeling, lying, prostration, and putting the head between his knees, as Elias did, etc. Let the Doctor now determine, if he can, which of these or others, is the most humble, or more humble, or less humble, or not humble at all; and he must needs sometimes charge holy men, yea, Christ himself to be less humble; which some would account a defect, if not a fault. e. gr. To say, that kneeling at Prayer, or at the Sacrament, is the most humble gesture, & more acceptable to God, (the plea of ignorant people) more humble than fitting, is to condemn our Saviour as less humble than himself; which is sufficient to show himself proud; and is besides, a degree of Superstition, and Will-worship: this very conceit, makes it a part of Worship, if it was none before.  
The like may be returned to the next: 
n. 4.  He that shall defend Festivals, as Days and Times to be more acceptable to God, than other Days, makes them thereby parts of Worship; and does not please but displease God: As for the Prayers and Thanksgivings, they are as acceptable on other Days, as on those Festivals; or if any shall think them more acceptable to God, for the Day's sake, he makes the Day's parts of Worship, and himself superstitious. So to observe Canonical hours of prayer, public or private, in such a number, and to place more acceptation in that number, then in a less frequency, is, ipso facto, to make it a part of Worship, and himself as superstitious, as the Pharisee that boasted of his Fasting twice a week. And this the Doctor does; making the Frequency of Prayer, a Free-will-offering, and tells me, displeasedly, that I make, pray continually, a debt and a duty. I do so, upon supposition of occasions or opportunities, which can hardly be wanting, in Ejaculatory prayer. I said, the particular number of 7. was not a debt; but I meant, just that number was no duty, from that example of David; but frequency indefinitely is a duty; and that proportionable to the occasions. Now no man can tell aforehand, how oft that precept, pray continually, and that other, praying always, for all things, Ephes. 5.20. will oblige him to pray, and that other, [In all things, or always give thanks,] obliges often: But both of them imply, that a man is bound to watch opportunities, and to take them; and there is not an hour, or minute in a day, but a man hath some occasion offered, either to pray or give thanks. But to tie a man's self to such a number, or frequency, and to think to please God by it, or find acceptance for it the more; is that which our Divines dislike as superstitions. To conclude this, he supposes again, what is not to be supposed, that a man may know, how oft that precept, pray continually, obliges a man every day; and then he may add some further frequency, which is not under precept, which falls, by what hath been said afore: And then his Free-will-offering falls with it.   

Sect. 39 We wave the four following Sections, etc. but cannot let pass, what he adds, about the difference, betwixt a Precept and Grace, etc.  
I Shall be brief in dispatching the particulars of this Section: because it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our main business: I said, [Grace itself and every degree of grace, being a talon also, requires a proportionable return to that degree; 
Luke 12.48.  to whom more is given, of him more is required.] To which last, he answers nothing, but talks still of a Latitude (as afore in Charity;) 
p. 199. n. 2.  [The proportionable return (he says) is not so placed in an indivisible point, that he that comes short of it offends in the defect, etc.] But sure, if more be required of him that received more; then that proportion is not in a latitude, or liberty to return less; but equal to the talon received: and then it can be no Free-will-offering. But what if he exceed that point, shall that be an offence too? This is grounded upon a false supposition, that a man may do more than he received, as above a command: And this appears by his cases supposed. [1. Two men that have the same grace in specie, both may use it well, and yet one make better use of it, than the other:] The case, first, shall be put in this latter; both having the same degree of grace; if one make better use of it then the other, surely he that made lesser use of the same measure of grace, fell short of his duty, and the other had no cause of boasting, for he did but his duty. As for exceeding or doing more, than his grace required, it savours to much of the Popish leaven of supererogation: 
n. 3.  and men will rather be found in the defect, then in the excess. 
n. 4.  [2. Paul laboured more than all the Apostles, by the grace of God in him: supposing that measure no greater than in Peter: yet this would certainly be accepted and rewarded, etc.] If Peter had the same measure of grace with Paul, and laboured less, it was his fault in the defect. If Paul with the same or a greater measure laboured more, he did but his duty at best, and so no Free-will-offring yet; and so no need of Procustis his bed: which is very unhandsomely here applied. Let him see how he will answer it to God.  
I never doubted but grace is often received in vain; but that I said was this, 
n. 6.  [Does God give grace to incline, and leave men free to use it or not to use it?] Which seems a fair inference, from what he says, [which he that maketh use of it is promised a reward:] as if he that made no use of it, should only lose his reward, or at most (as he says) be punished with the withdrawing of his talon, the grace given him. And this he makes the difference of a Precept and a Grace; [The one lays an obligation, and that sub periculo animae, if not obeyed; the other not so, but only to strengthen and incline:] mark that, not sub periculo animae, if it be not used: but if he use it, a reward; if not, no punishment but loss of his grace received; which perhaps he would account a benefit to be rid off: And yet says presently; [The bringing of God no return, of all his grace, is a great and damning sin:] but than it differs not from a precept, not obeyed, and is given sub periculo animae, if not used. But is it not a damning sin also, not to return a proportion to his measure of grace? No, (says he) if he bring him some return, in a latitude; [for there's no obligation in this matter, ad semper, or, or gradum, to do it always, or to such a a degree.] To which I said, first, That there is an obligation, Semper, 
He that received five returned five more; he that two, two, etc. p. 100L. n. 8.  as opportunity is offered, and always to the degree of the grace, a gradual improvement. [To whom more is given, of him more is required;] Is express Scripture. 2. That this gloss savours too much of the Romish dialect; all which he takes no notice of.  
And it seems he was in some haste (more than good speed) to recriminate, and cast dirt in the face of his adversary. [They that most demurely reprehend this kind of Divinity, that leave nothing to man's will, yet do often exhort and reprehend men; which must certainly be vain and ridiculous, unless they be in some possibility by God's grace, to do what they are exhorted to, etc.] But, first, I never denied but grace was often received in vain; but I said, it was not given by God, not to be used, or not improved by men, but only to strengthen and incline, as he asserts. 2. Who are those men, that leave nothing to man's will? not I for certain, who say, the will is (too) free to evil, and by grace made, in some measure, free to good also. 3. Who says, men are not in possibility, by God's grace, to do what they are exhorted to? though I fear, he equivocates in the word grace, as he knows, who were wont to do. 4. Why may not they exhort and reprehend such, that do not what they can to avoid sins, and do things materially good? The Doctor seems to hold, that no man may be exhorted to, or reprehended for, what is now to him impossible: or, that common grace is enough to enable men to do, what is commanded: or else it is vain and ridiculous. But this is a new controversy, and I list not to enter into it. My meaning was as afore, which now he stumbles upon, [That God's giving grace in vain, 
n. 9.201.  must be his not giving it so, as that it shall be no sin, not to use it.] If this be a strange expression, it's long of his stranger Divinity: who says, grace is not so given, but only to incline, and strengthen, not to be used, etc. which was to me, to give it in vain. But of this enough before.  
We are at last, brought to the old refuge of a latitude, but with a double contradiction to what he said before. 1. 
n. 10.  That grace laid no obligation upon a man, but only served to strengthen and incline: yet now says, grace doth bring obligation with it. 2. That it did not oblige to a return, proportionable to the measure of grace, non ad gradum; now he says, it brings obligation with it, and that to some return proportionable to that grace: But that proportionable return must be, not only ad speciem, but ad gradum. The only evasion is, [proportionable return consists in a latitude, which hath several degrees in it;] Belike then, he that hath ten talents, if he bring in but one talon improved, brings a proportionable return; for that's within the latitude. So that if he return of ten degrees, but one, yet he offends not in the defect, as contra, (for so he says) [He that exceeds that minimum quod sic, that least degree, shall not offend by way of excess, but is more acceptable, and more highly rewardable.] As if the other nine degrees of ten. (For that's the latitude) were all above command, and works of supererogation. Yes, so he says in the conclusion; [As the lowest of these degrees are under obligation, so the superior are not; 
p. 201. n. 10  but yet such as will be accepted and rewarded by God, to him that arrives to them.] This is very easy and pleasant Divinity. Let the Reader judge.   

Sect. 40.41. Object. Prudence will require us to do that which is fittest to be done, and so nothing is free; be answers, etc.  
WE are now entering into a new Sea of controversy; 
p. 203. n. 2, 3.  ] Whether man is bound to be prudent, to that degree, which he lost by sin.] The Doctor (to show us some of his new Divinity) distinguishes; [If by sin he mean man's own actual sins, whereby he hath any ways infatuated himself; then the affirmative is true, but not appliable to the matter in hand, etc. But if of original sin, this sure will be found a mistake; for this loss of adam's was a punishment of Adam's sin, and in his posterity must be looked on as a punishment; and he that is punished cannot be obliged not to be punished.] It's easily known, in what School, the Doctor learned this Divinity, though I say nothing. But to the point, and to begin with the last first. First, What doth the Doctor mean by original sin? That in Adam only, or Adam's first actual sin? (as some Papists clearly do:) and so make the loss of prudence and original righteousness, to be no sin, but only the punishment of sin; 
If it were not sin in Adam himself, then sure it cannot he such in his posterity? n. 3.  both in Adam, and in his posterity? This Papists say, and the Doctor seems to hold so, by his arguing; at least in Adam's posterity. Yet why is it not a punishment in Adam as well as in his posterity; and then no sin in him, [for he that is punished cannot be obliged not to be punished.] If no man now be bound to be as prudent as Adam was in his integrity, (as he says) was not Adam himself bound after his fall to be as prudent and righteous, as in his integrity? No, for than he should be bound not to be punished, being punished with the loss of that prudence, and original righteousness. 2. Will the Doctor grant any original sin in Adam's posterity? then I ask, what that original sin is? If only, the loss, or want of original righteousness (as Papists make it) is not the want of original righteousness a sin? How then is it called orginal sin, if it be no sin? And sin it cannot be (in the Doctor's Divinity) because it is a punishment of Adam's sin. Then again, no infant is a sinner, in the want of original righteousness: Oh, blessed harmless babes! while they live, and surely all saved when they die young. This is the Divinity of some of the Doctor's Scholars, which I fear they learned from him. 3. Did the Doctor never hear, in the Schools, [That one sin, is the punishment of another,] and in the Scripture, that God (in severest justice) punishes sin with sin? and why not adam's first sin, with the loss of original righteousness (which itself is a sin, as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an inconformity to that Law created in him?) in himself and his posterity, they being all in him, and standing or falling with him? But if original sin, in Adam's posterity, 
The pollutions of our nature, etc. are infelicities, if not sins. Pract. cat. p. 52. yet p. 74. called sin.  be more than a want of original righteousness, even a pravity of nature inclining them to all evil, as well as averting from any good; (as all Orthodox hold) it is not only a punishment, but also a sin. And then though he that is punished is not bound not to be punished, yet he that hath lost original righteousness, is bound to be righteous; as righteous (and so as prudent) as he was created. As a decoctor or prodigal of an entrusted state, who hath wastefully spent it, (which is to him a punishment sufficient, to want that estate) is yet bound to the repayment of it. 4. A man that by his actual sins, hath infatuated himself (which is the first part of his distinction) is bound to be prudent to that degree of prudence, he lost by his sin, (there is truth in this affirmation says the Doctor.) But say I, the very loss of that prudence, is a punishment of his sin; and so cannot be a sin too, by the Doctors arguing. That it is both a sin and punishment, the Apostle is clear, Rom. 1.21, 22. [When they knew God, and glorified him not as God, etc. they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened, they became fools.] Is it not a sin for a man, by his own lusts, to darken his own heart, and to put out his own eyes? yet is it also a punishment, infflicted by God upon him, ver. 28. [God gave them up to a reprobate mind.] Much more might be added: But granting it true, of a man, infatuated by his actual sins; yet the Doctor hath his evasions: ['Tis not appliable to the matter in hand, viz. to such an high degree of prudence, as now he speaks of; for of that he may come short, without any degree of actual sin, as shall thus infatuate, and deprive him of prudence.] Let the Doctor apply this to Adam himself, when he was alive, after his fall: He was bound to that high degree of prudence, which I speak of, that he lost by his sin: and of that he might not, without sin, come short, though his following actual sins did not further infatuate him, and deprive him of that little remaining prudence which he had. Prudence in the highest degree, was a part or degree of the Image of God, that knowledge he had, at his creation, which by his actual sin he lost; and is not loss, or want of that knowledge, or Image of God, a sin, as well as a punishment? If so in Adam, so also in his posterity. He therefore shifts the foot of his answer; [He speaks of a regenerate man, by the enlightening wise Spirit of God returned to that state of prudence, from which his own actual sins may have degraded him; and if so, he is as prudent as he is bound to be, and yet capable and growing in knowledge, and so free from sin in this respect, though not at the highest, that lapsed nature is capable of.] Though this regenerate man, appear not in the Doctor's discourse, yet it will do him no good, if granted; for we speak of any man since the fall, every man is bound to aspire to that degree of prudence, or knowledge, which he lost, not only by his own actual sin; but by the sin of Adam. Hence the Apostle, Rom. 12.2. lays it on all as a command, [Be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind, that you may prove, what that perfect will of God is. And Eph. 4.23, 24. Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on that new man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which after God, was created in righteousness and true holiness.] Which in Col. 3.10. he expresses thus, [Which is renewed in knowledge, after the Image of him that created him.] Implying that what is short of that Image, that knowledge, is short of that which the Gospel calls us to, and consequently a sin, contrary to the Doctor who says, [Though he arrive not at the highest degree, 
The Law is satisfied with the lowest. n. 6. n. 3.  he is free from sin.] His latitude, gives his disciples elbow-room enough in Religion, and takes off their care of aspiring to higher degrees, when the lowest is without sin. But hear more in the second part of his distinction; [No man is bound now, to be as prudent, as Adam in his Integrity, any more than to be as healthy, any more than to be born in the state of innocency and perfection, etc.] Strange confidence this: 1. Is there no difference between a mere punishment, and that which may be a sin, as well as a punishment? Does not he that sins (did not Adam so) deface the Image of God, whereof prudence was a part? as he that defiles himself, defaces the Image of God, that consisted in true Holiness? and is not that a sin? and is not that man bound to make reparation of that wrong, in defacing the Image of God? But sickness and diseases are mere punishments, and so no man is bound to be as healthy, as Adam was created. And for innocence and perfection, (as well as prudence) a man is bound to be as innocent and perfect as Adam, though he cannot be born so, being begotten of impure and defiled parents, and for want thereof, is born by nature the child of wrath, which supposes him sinful.  
But this and the like assertions of mine, 
p. 204. n. 4.  (he says) [Are nothing but an heap of paralogismes, no one of the proofs belonging to the highest degree of mercy, which should be inferred from them. I had thought that perfection, which Law and Gospel call for, had intended the highest degree of piety and mercy; but the Doctor hath found out a new kind of perfection, which hath a large latitude of degrees; 
n. 5.  of which more ere long. Hear what he says here. 1. [The perfection of Holiness which the Law required, was but either sincere and upright, or at most, but unsinning obedience, and neither of these includes the highest degree of Piety, which is possible.] The first part of this answer, confounds Law & Gospel: The Law required not only sincerity and uprightness, but also exact perfection of of parts and degrees: [Do this, all this, and do it well, or die.] The Gospel is satisfied indeed with sincerity and uprightness; pardoning what is not exactly done, and accepting through Christ what is done; but the Law knows no such Indulgence: This he misdoubting, helps it with another; [or at most but unfinning obedience.] But unfinning obedience, includes both a conformity of nature, to the Holiness of the Law, and also the highest degree of piety possible. He that comes short in a degree of Holiness, which the Law requireth, his Holiness is sinful, and without mercy, damnable. [Cursed is he that continueth not in all things, etc.] Yea, the highest degree of Piety (if possible) in a nature corrupted, and inconformable to the Law, is finning obedience; and needs pardon.  
This answer afore, satisfies him not; therefore he adds, 
n. 6.  [If by the Law be meant the Covenant made with Adam in innocency, then it's true, that the perfection, which that required, was unfinning obedience; and if Adam had performed that, yet he had been capable of higher degrees of Piety, than that law required, there being in unfinning obedience a latitude, etc.] The Doctor is much beholden to his latitude, and degrees of perfection, etc. But it's proved already that unsinning obedience, reaches to the least title of the Law, and to the highest degree of Piety; and then the cause is mine. And as for Adam's being capable of higher degrees of Piety, upon his unfinning obedience; that is, that his state was a state of proficiency, it comes presently to be considered in the next. But I pray was not the sum of that Law, [To love (and to serve) the Lord, with all his heart, soul, mind, strength,] that is, to the utmost of his possibility? and then, must he not needs sin, if he came short, or remitted his love, in any of those circumstances? Yet he says, upon his former mistake, [That to those highest degrees, the Law cannot be thought to bind, when it is satisfied with the lowest; all the superior degrees being additions.] Which is certainly false: For if Adam might have satisfied the Law, with the lowest degrees of Piety, he might have remitted of his love in the service of God, contrary to that Law, and besides might have merited (as Papists say) by going to those highest degrees, beyond unfinning obedience, and above what the Law did bind him to. But this suits well with the Doctors uncommanded Worship, and works of perfection above all commands.  
Yet this the Doctor must gain, or he loses his cause; he therefore instances in frequency of prayer, [Adam (says he) might have exceeded any proportion which Gods Law required of him. 
p. 7. p. 204. ] But what if I should say, Adam needed not to pray at all, as wanting nothing, unless he would pray for perseverance; but the Angels in Heaven, need perseverance, yet we read not that they pray for it: But this may seem a paradox, but not so unlikely as some of the Doctors. I shall therefore wave it, and desire to know of him, what proportion of frequency in Prayer, the Law required of him? How many times a day, etc. this must be resolved, before he could exceed that proportion: I leave it with him, and proceed. 2. [If Adam had never finned, yet might his state, he a state of proficiency, and then the perfection required, was not the highest degree of Piety, etc.] The Antecedent is very uncertain, that his state was a state of proficiency; he was as perfect and complete in his kind, as his nature could hold; as the Angels were (its probable) as full of holiness, at their creation, as they are now; and so the Saints after the day of Judgement, as perfectly holy, as to eternity; no proficiency in grace; that's for viatores, not for comprehensores: And hence it's evident, that the highest degree of Piety was required of him, and he had sinned, by any lower; contrary to the Doctor's consequence. 3. That Adam and his posterity should have been rewarded according to their works, (the Doctor's third argument) is true; but that they should have had degrees of rewards, is at best a problem, and upon the former ground, of a state of non proficiency, like to be false. This may be seconded, by the instance of Angels, there is no such proportion of rewards to them; for they enjoyed God, their utmost happiness, from the first creation, at least from their confirmation, as they shall do, to eternity. And now if I were disposed to make the Doctor some new work, I could cast a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as he calls it) an Apple of contention, before him, by starting a new question, [Whether there shall be degrees of glory, to the Saints, in Heaven.] He knows it is a controversy amongst very learned men, and much is said on both sides: If he please to determine it, let him; and I proceed.  
What was said before of Adam's proficiency, and rewards proportionable, he confesses to be but a speculation; 
p. 204. n. 8.  he therefore [supposes I meant the Law of the Jews, and then the perfection of Holiness which that required, must, he supposes, signify truth and sincerity of Holiness, such as was in Zach. and Eliz. Luke 1.6.] There is first a mistake, that I meant the Law of the Jews, as contradistinct to the Law; which he calls a covenant of works: I meant it of the Law, as contradistinct to the Gospel; in that sense, the Law given to the Jews required not only sincerity and truth, 
See Gal. 5.3.  (which yet were required in innocence) but perfections of Holiness, in the highest degree, as I said afore. I remember I have read somewhere, 
Pract. cat. p. 8. 2. edit.  that the Doctor says, [The truth is, the Judaical Law did represent unto us the first covenant, and that especially, and is so called, Heb. 8. by requiring perfect obedience, and pronouncing a curse on him, that continued not in all those many burdensome ordinances, which the Law gave no power to perform.] True it is the Doctor adds there, [So it did represent the second covenant:] But under favour, he speaks, incongruously twice. 1. In saying, the Law Judaical represented the second Covenant, which the Gospel only holds forth. 2. That he joins the Ceremonial Laws and Ordinances, as a part of the first Covenant with the Moral Law, which alone was the Covenant of works to Adam. Neither did that Law represent the second Covenant at all; for the Ceremonial Law of Sacrifices, etc. did only represent Christ, and this was a Gospel dispensation, and beside the promises of Christ, obscurely intimated, this was a great part of the Jews Gospel. Hence it will follow, that the perfection of Holiness which that Law of the Jews so considered, required, was not only sincerity and truth of Holiness, but (as he said) unfinning perfect obedience, and pronouncing a curse, etc. Sincerity and truth of Holiness, as it was also required in the Law, is accepted only in the Gospel: Then Zach. and Eliz. were not just with respect to the Judaical Law, but the Gospel dispensation. And when we hear of any, said to be just, and perfect, it must be understood Evangelically, not Legally and strictly: for properly there is no perfection, but what exactly answers to the perfection of the Law. Then it follows again, that there are no degrees of perfection; perfection implying the highest degree. There are degrees of Holiness and Righteousness, in the same, or divers persons, but no degrees of perfection; yet these degrees of perfection, the Doctor makes great use of, as we shall again hear.  
I said, the Law required Perfection of Holiness, and he said, the Gospel requires yet greater perfection: 
n. 10.  He answers, [That greater perfection which Christ required, is but an higher degree of the same perfection; but not the highest that is possible, etc.] But here are many mistakes. 1. That there are degrees of perfection. 2. That he having imputed Imperfection to the Law, yet calls that perfection that Christ required, an higher degree of perfection; when the Law before, was itself imperfect, wanting perfection; 
 perfectorum perfectiores appareant & Gnosticorum magis Gnostici viri, etc. ut Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 5. Opepones, etc.  and required it not. Christ only required perfection. 3. The perfection required, whether by the Law, or Christ, being supposed to be the Highest, he yet makes one, yea, many degrees of perfection above the highest: Christ (says he) did not require the highest degree that is possible: And now we have a fine Philosophical speculation indeed: [Suppose eight degrees of zeal or piety, or perfection; A Jew had as many, suppose five, as would denominate him perfect a Christian more, to have six, it's visible, that he that hath all, that is required of a Christian, is yet capable of having more, seven, and yet not come to the eighth degree.] [Take heed that no man spoil you, by Philosophy, etc.] may very well be used here. The Doctor might as well made 18, or 80. degrees of Zeal, and Piety in several men, 
p. 205. n. 11  and he does so, presently: [There is beside, in every degree, a latitude also, and in it, as it were fractions, and all this little enough to bear proportion with them different works of pious men here, or their glory hereafter.] But, first, In this Arithmetical, or Geometrical proportion, the Doctor forgot where to place the four first degrees of Zeal, Piety, Perfection; and I can think of none but Heathens to be a fit subject of them; so that some, at least four degrees of them must be found in an Heathen, five, in a Jew, six, at least in a Christian: If then an Heathen arrive, at the fourth degree, he is perfect in his latitude; a Jew at five, etc. And no marvel, for the Doctor made (above) the Athenians to be very pious men, and more devout than their neighbours, 2. But then again, I would ask, what if the Heathen come short of the fourth degree, the Jew of the fifth, the Christian of the sixth, are they perfect or imperfect, in that posture? That they are yet perfect, according to the Doctor's Philosophy, (for Divinity it is not) is proved from this, that his latitude of perfection, takes in all the eight degrees; ergo, he is perfect that hath but one degree, as well as he that hath four being an Heathen, or five being a Jew, or six being a Christian: Nay, he that hath the lowest fraction of the sixth degree, hath the sixth degree; then he that hath the lowest fraction of the fifth, hath the fifth; and so of the fourth. And why then hath not he that hath but one degree, nay one fraction of that first degree, a right to challenge perfection, as will as he that hath four, five, or six degrees. 3. If he shall say, He that falls short of the fifth degree, being a Jew, falls short of perfection, and is imperfect; and he that falls short of the sixth degree, being a Christian, falls short of perfection, and is imperfect; then I would ask by what Rule of Scripture, or right reason, is he imperfect, that falls short of five, being a Jew; or six, being a Christian; and yet he that arrives at five, or six, yea, the lowest fraction of that degree, said to be perfect; seeing he also falls short of the eighth, which is supposed the highest degree of perfection. 4. Divinty would rather say; supposing Zeal and Piety, to require eight degrees; he is only perfectly zealous, and perfectly pious, who arrives at the eighth degree, and all these that fall short, more or less, of that degree, to be more or less (not perfect, for that they are not, but) imperfect, and so no degrees of perfection; what is less than it ought to be, is in vitio, so far faulty, and sinful; as we shall hear anon. As fractions therefore in Arithmetic, are imperfect numbers; so those degrees of Zeal and Piety, in Divinity, are imperfect virtues: there may be degrees of virtues, Zeal, Piety, etc. but no degrees of perfection. But enough and too much of this fine speculation.  
The next about degrees of mercy, is bottomed upon the same airy speculation. 1. 
p. 205. n. 12  That there is any highest degree of mercy determined by the Law, to which a man is bound; which being done, a man may exceed that. The Law is not determinative, but according to circumstances, requires more or less; and then binds, and so it is not above command. 2. That to give above a man's ability, and the necessity of the poor, is no breach of charity, in the excess; when as the Law limits charity to others, by that to our selves. 3. That the Macedonians, did give above their ability, which the text says not, as was noted above. I did not understand that precept, 
n. 13.  [Be merciful as your heavenly Father, etc.] in regard of equality, but quality; and in regard of proportioning our mercy, according to the circumstances, which command our mercy; as Deut. 15 8. [Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.] That's one act of charity; another is, giving, ver. 10. [Thou shalt surely give him, etc.] The words are more full in the Original; [Opening, thou shalt open thy hand, and lending, thou shalt lend him; (how much?) enough for his want, that which is wanting to him; giving, thou shalt give unto him.] That is, freely, fully, according to thy ability, and his necessity. But what if the Doctor do this, and then will be yet more merciful? is that excess, and a fault? I had said, Circumstances considered, [I am bound to supply his need; and to give less, were neither prudent, nor pious, what ever it were, to give more.] This last, the Doctor takes hold on; [He dare not pronunce it an offence, against either of those virtues, to go beyond this: but breaks off abruptly, what ever it were to give more.] I did not then affirm it to be an offence to give more; because it was in question: but if he had read on the next Section, I brought here his own confession; [That it's possible to offend against prudence in too prodigal a giving; and in too parsimonious, against Piety.] That says as much, as I intended: that there may be an offence in the excess in giving too much; as in too little, a defect: to which he says nothing, but labours to evade it, as we shall see presently. But in his way, a man can hardly offend, either in the defect or excess: Not in the defect, if he give but a little; yet charity or mercy having a latitude, and degrees: he that arrives at the lowest degree, or fraction of a degree, is not only merciful, but perfect in mercy, as well as he that goes to an higher degree: Not in the excess; for he had newly said, n. 12. [Supposing any sum, that in all those circumstances, two men are bound to give, yet certainly one may lawfully exceed that sum, and give more; even beyond his ability; and this not be sinful, but more acceptable, etc.] Why then should the Doctor blame (if he do blame) some devout Papists, who give away all, and go themselves a begging, as thinking it a very meritorious work, more acceptable; more rewardable? yet this the Doctor adds, [As I am bound to supply his present wants, so I may make provision also against his future necessities, etc.] He says too little in the last; he may, yea must make provision against his future necessities; for he wants for the future, as well as at present; and an able man is bound to provide for that. The Samaritane gave him a good pattern for this, who did not only power in wine and oil, for his present need, but left money, and charge to the host, to take care of him, with promise to repay it: [Go thou and do likewise,] is our Saviour's inference and command: and then, not above a command.   

Sect. 42. And here he confesses its possible to offend, etc.  
THat virtue (and so charity) consists in a middle point, between two extremes, he cannot deny; but still flies to his old refuge, not in an indivisible point, there is a latitude of degrees, etc. To which enough hath been said afore. All he excepts to, is, [That righteousness of God, 
p. 206. n. 14  doth not use to punish those facts which have no Law observable by man to forbid them, etc.] I did not say, they had no Law observable by man; but thus, [If it swerve from that point, to either extreme, it is more or less a fault, though not observed, perhaps not observable by men.] My meaning was, that a man might easily swerve from the middle point, the straight line, wherein virtue consists, and very hardly observe the declinations: which yet is punishable, etc. especially when some vices have the very similitude of virtues. The Doctor seems to think, that in natural men, the Law being blotted and blurred in their hearts, the Lord may not in justice punish them, for what they cannot now read; just like his other Divinity. I said moreover, [Prudence itself being a virtue, in our created nature, then certainly commanded to do what was fittest, and so it doth still, that what is short of the Rule, by our imprudence, is a fault, etc.] To which just nothing.  
But enough to the next. I said two things in answer to the objection propounded by him, 
p. 207. n. 15.  [That it seemed to touch upon. 1. The mercenary. 2. The meritorious way of Romanists, etc.] To the latter he says little, yet sure the Romanists do hold merit of good works, though required by the Law or Gospel; how much more, of works, and perfections of virtues above the Law and Gospel? wherein how the Doctor agrees with them, let him consider: I can see no difference; but that the Doctor denies the word, merit, which they openly profess. For the other, I say it is too mercenary to look only, or first, at the reward, rather than at virtue; and to look at a greater reward for a work, or virtue, above a command, make it yet more mercenary, and savours too much of merit. Did the Doctor never hear it spoken, [O derunt peccare boni virtutis amore? And that, a good man should serve God for himself, though neither reward nor punishment, heaven nor hell?] No, this is some new modern Divinity sure: As ancient as Clem. Alexand. Stromat. 4. who asserts, Virum bonum & perfectum nihil boni facere, propter metum poenae, vel spem mercedis, sive ab hominibus, sive ab ipso Deo? And so Bernard, De diligendo Deo: Licet Deus sine praemio diligi non potest, tamen non est ei, intuitu praemii, serviendum. Which cannot be absolutely taken, 
n. 18.  but as I have expressed. As for merces ex pacto, or by way of promise, that's made to works under command; but there is no pactum, or promise of reward, to any works done, above the Law: or let us see the place. Where hath Christ promised a greater reward, to any such work above the Law? That Matt. 5.12. is made to such as suffer for him, but upon command, To take up their cross. But where hath Christ promised a greater reward, to that perfect state of Virginity, (as he calls it) then to honest and chaste Marriage? It is therefore presumption for any man to expect it, upon that notion, and (as he said, s. 45. of Superst.) [groundless, and folly, fastening some promise upon Christ, which he hath not made in the Gospel; 
p. 208. n. 20. ] which is no better than lying. But he says, [He supposed prudence to look either only, or first, on the greatest perfection of virtue, as the way, to the most glorious reward.] I pray, what is that perfection of virtue, that he first looks at? It is either under command, or not. If under it, it cannot look for a greater reward, but by promise: If not under command (as he intends it, of Virginity, or voluntary Martyrdom) as it hath no promise, so it is no proper virtue, or perfection, (as shall be showed anon) and so no way to the most glorious reward hereafter. The Doctor is here even at the gates of Rome.  
I denied not, that it was lawful to make use of hope and fear, and so to look at rewards promised, or punishments threatened; 
p. 209. n. 23.  yet the Doctor first makes [my Divinity here suitable to what I gave a taste of, in that of slavish fear;] (which whether it be not better than his, the Reader may judge by what is said about it above, ad p. 26.) and then jeers me with the fable [of the woman's firebrand and basin of water; one to burn up heaven, the other to quench the fire of hell: to take away hope and fear, etc.] I believe I have said as much in vindication of hope of reward, in a Sermon abroad, some years since, on 2 John ver. 8. as the Doctor hath said, in his on 
* I suppose it should be 2 Cor. 7.1. yet not among the Erratas.  1 Cor. 7.1. which I never saw; or in his last Edition of his Pract. Cat. which I have not yet read: as perhaps, nor he mine.  
He now speaks out, 
p. 210. n. 26  and says, [The highest degree of virtue, is, in this whole debate, denied by him, to be under command.] And he adds very angrily, 
n. 27.  [It were a contradiction and madness in him, when he speaks of perfection, which is not under command, to mean that which is required in the Commandments.] I have hitherto, I confess, thought it a contradiction, & little less than a spiritual madness in the Proctors of Rome, to hold, the greatest perfection here, or the highest degree of virtue, to be under none, but above all command. Nor did I think the Doctor had been gone so far in this disease, that when he spoke all along of Will-worship, uncommanded Worship, in Rites, and Ceremonies, and Festivals, he had intended them to be the highest virtues, or perfections, not under command, which now I perceive he does. We must therefore unravel all again, and search further into this Romish mystery: The Doctor somewhere above, charges me with a fallacy, plurium Interrogationum; but if he be not in this debate, more guilty of it himself, let the Reader judge. There are in it many questions, not yet determined; which must be resolved, before this discourse will pass: as, first, [Whether there be any virtues, not under command. 2. Whether there be any perfection above command. 3. Whether there be any perfection in this life. 4. Whether there be any degrees in that perfection. 5. Whether Virginity, and voluntary Martyrdom, etc. be to be accounted virtues. 6. Whether there be a greater reward promised to such, then to works commanded, or under the Law?] I shall speak to then all.  

Quest. 1. Whether there be any virtues, not under command.  
This Question seems to me, to be all one with that of Papists, whether there be any Counsels, or works of Counsels, above command. Which they thus define, [A Counsel is a good work, not commanded by Christ, but commended.] So Bellarm. Or, [an exhortation to some good work, obedience to which, is laudable; but the transgression inculpable.] So Alphons. de Castr. which will better appear, by the opposition of a precept; [Which is a Law or Rule, which binds all, to whom it is given, so that he that disobeyes it, is in danger of eternal damnation.] They differ (say they) many ways, especially in the end; [Which of a precept is, either reward or punishment; of a Counsel is, a greater reward to him that observes it, and no punishment to him that neglects it.] The Doctor (to avoid the odium, or suspicion of compliance with Papists) avoids the name of Counsels, but yet, first, gives us another word, that is the genus of it, advice, or exhortation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, opinion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just as in the case of single life, pag. 192. n. 3. And 2. Talks of virtues not under command, which is Counsels with Papists. And 3. Makes the observers of them capable of a greater reward, 
See suprd p. 93. n. 4. s. 4.  and no punishment to the neglecters of them. The Apostle gives his advice, only in things indifferent, and so do Papists, and the Doctor; but herein they differ, that the Apostle assigns no reward (much less a greater) to the observers; or any loss of reward, to them that neglect them, much less, punishment. If they would call Counsels, works in themselves not evil, left to every man's freewill, and no more ado, we (says Chamier) would not deny them such: as Paul Counsels Timothy, to use a little wine; and the Corinthians, to abstain from Marriage, in that time of distress, supposing the gift of continency. But such Counsels as these, as they incur no punishment, 
Good in an high degree. p. 93. n. 4.  if neglected; so if observed, they have no reward in heaven. But it's evident, the Papists, and the Doctor with them, do not esteem them opera non mala; but bona, good, yea better, then works commanded; and also make them virtues, highest virtues, and most acceptable, and rewardable. Now that there are no such Counsels, or Virtues above the command of God; I thus shall prove.  
1. [Every proper virtue acted, is an act of obedience; But virtues above command, acted, are no acts of obedience; ergo,] The Minor is evident thus: Every act of obedience, presupposes a command; for obedience and a command are relata; therefore without a command, there can be no obedience. The Major is proved thus; every virtue acted, presupposes a Rule, to which it holds conformity; but conformity, to a Rule, is an act of obedience; and consequently not above command.  
2. [There is no virtue, but hath its opposite vices: It's the nature of virtue, to stand in the midst, between two extremes: But Counsels or Virtues above command, have no opposite vices, in the excess or defect.] Not an excess, for they are the highest perfections: not a defect, because there is no prohibition of neglect or omission of it; and so the neglect or transgression of them, is no sin, and then no vice in the defect: 
See p. 93. n. 4.  So the say, neglect of a Counsel, is no sin.  
3. [If there be any virtue above command, than there is some vice, under no prohibition of the Law. The consequence is good, for there is parratio of vice and virtue: But there is no vice or sin, below, and not under a prohibition of the Law] This is clear, from the definition of sin; which is a transgression, or inconformity to the Law. Yet I remember the Doctor above, quarrelled with them, that reduced all sins to the Law of the Decalogue: 
Sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law. p. 222. n. 3.  It may be upon design; that if there be any sins not reducible to the Law, he might introduce also some virtues not reducible to the Law; that is, above command: And I add, if sin or vice, be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies not so much a transgression, as an inconformity to the Rule of the Law; then every virtue must be a conformity to some Law; which may be added to strengthen the first argument.  
4. [That which is under no Law, precept or prohibition, is a thing left indifferent:] Now to do a thing indifferent, is not capable of praise; or neglect it, of dispraise, of reward or punishment. But the doing of a Counsel, (say they) is very commendable, yea rewardable; as the highest virtue, or perfection; therefore it is no thing indifferent, and then it must be under command or prohibition, which is a contradiction to their assertion, that these virtues, are under no command. More might be added, but these may suffice at present.   

Quest. 2. Whether there be any perfection above command.  
This depends upon the former, and stands or falls with it; for the perfection the Doctor means, is of virtues above command, or (in his own words) uncommanded degrees of virtue. And here the Doctor must hold out a new coined distinction, of perfection of virtues, under the Law, and perfection of virtues above the Law: for so he does, in effect, when he says, [A man may come to the perfection, which the Law requires, and yet come short, or go beyond it; to an higher degree of perfection, in uncommanded degrees of virtues.] Nay more, [The latitude of virtues under command is so large,] (like the distance, between the Tropics) that a man may tumble up & down, & arrive at the least degree of perfection, required by the Law; be yet more perfect if he arrive at an higher degree, not commanded by the Law; though (which is a contradiction) under the command of the Law. This may be gathered from n. 10, 11. by his eight degrees of perfection; and the fractions in every degree: Let the Reader turn back, and consider if it be not so. But besides this, there are degrees of perfection, (beyond the Tropics) in uncommanded virtues, above the Law, I know not how many: and those we now are to consider; One or two Arguments may suffice to ruin this opinion. [1. If there be no virtues above command, than there is no perfection above command.] The consequence is clear, because the Doctor by perfection here, understands uncommanded virtues, or above command: The Antecedent is proved by four arguments, to the former question; ergo. 2. [If the Law be the absolute and only Rule of perfection, than there can be no perfection above command: But the first is true, Psal. 19.7. Jam. 1.25.] The consequence is evident, and needs no proof. The Doctor then must find out some distinctions to evade this; either, first, That of Papists, [There is a twofold perfection; first, perfect, according to the Law; or imperfect, suitable to our frailty;] Which seems a contradiction in adjecto, an imperfect perfection: yet so they speak. 2. That of his own; [Perfection is capable of a double notion: either it may signify unsinning obedience; or any higher degree of exercise of any particular virtue, chastity, mercy, etc.] Of which more, when we come at it. p. 214. n. 37. Only saying now, that these distinctions are almost the same, with that of our Divines, that perfection is either legal, which is properly perfection; or Evangelical, improperly called so, by Divine indulgence and acceptance. But this will stand him in no stead here; the question being, [whether there be any perfection above command,] above the Law; not whether there be any other perfection in the Gospel above the Law. And this would have fitted the Doctor better, who holds, that Christ hath perfected the Law, and brought in an higher degree of perfection, than was required by the Law: as we shall hear ere long: in this sense, he might say, there is a perfection above the Law; that is, in the Gospel: but this is not to the purpose; for even that perfection, is under the command of Christ; and so not above command. 3. Add this one argument more, that which is under obligation on men to do, is not above, but under some command (the reason and proof of this is, because obligation to do any thing supposes a command.) But the most Heroical virtues, or works, are under obligation to be done: This is proved thus, those works which are done by some special gift and strength from God, are, co nomine, under some obligation to be done; but those high works are done by some special gift and strength from God (and cannot be done without it.) The Minor is evident and needs no proof: the Major is proved by that maxim universal of our Saviour, [To whomsoever much is given, of him much is required, and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more, Luke 12.48.] But to those heroical workers, much and more is given; therefore much and more will be required, and so they are not above command. For this we have the Doctors own concession: [Whatsoever degree of perfection, either by doing or suffering, we can aspire to, it is still the 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? p. 224. n. 3.] Let him consider how he will reconcile himself to himself, who above allowed of boasting, ad p. 185. n. 5. 6.   

Quest. 3. Whether any perfection at all, in this life.  
This is also taken for granted by the Doctor, but never proved; but our Divines, generally deny it, and oppose Papists, who affirm it. They say, [There is no perfection in this life, but only in that to come, when God shall be all in all.] It may be said, in this our peregrination, some are more perfect than others, or rather more truly and properly, more or less imperfect, as there is a progression in the love of God and our neighbour; under which heads is contained, what ever perfection can be propounded to any man: to which all Christians are to aspire, but cannot attain it here. And this the Doctor dare not deny, or if he should, may easily be refuted: first, by Scripture, [Who liveth, and sinneth not: If we say we have no sin, we sin by lying.] And secondly, by reason, from Scripture: If in many things we sin all, than we reach not to the Rule of perfection, the Law. 3. The reason of it is, we know but in part, and believe but in part, and so practise but in part. 4. Saint Paul as high toward perfection as any man, denies it of himself, Phil. 3 12. [Not as though I were already perfect.] If the Doctor shall say, as he will anon; he means it not of unfinning perfection, of the Law, he must be told again, he varies and deserts the question, which is of perfection above command, which is, above the Law.   

Quest. 4. Whether any degrees of perfection.  
A man would think this were reasonably denied; there are degrees toward perfection, but perfection itself knows no degrees: yea, degrees to perfection, and progress in grace, to which the best are exhorted, argues Imperfection; but here the Doctor will fly to his Latitude and degrees of virtues: to which enough hath been said already.   

Quest. 5. Whether Virginity, voluntary Martyrdom, etc. be virtues or states of perfection.  
The Doctor speaking of uncommanded degrees of virtues, expresses it in four particulars; 
p. 210. n. 27.  [Virginity, Austerities, abundant Laboring, and Martyrdom itself.] For the first of those, the Doctor should have told us, what he intends by it; whether he mean chastity, for so Papists do; as if there were no Chastity in Marriage; or Caelibate and single life: If he take Virginity for Chastity, that's an improper instance, for it's under command, and he is speaking of uncommanded virtues. He must then understand it of single life, or an unmarried state; which I gather, because he speaks of undertaking those courses be it of Virginity, etc. and elsewhere says, [It is not commanded, but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection] I wonder he did not except Martyrdom, for reasons which he knows, but let it pass. Take it then, for single life; I would make bold to ask, how is single life a virtue? and if it be, is not Marriage a virtue too? they are but differing states of life: [Gerson (says Doctor Hall) hath taught us not to call Virginity a virtue; though cousin german to a virtue.] But sure that must be, when Virginity, that is single life, is attended with chastity of body and spirit: else it's far enough from virtue. But by the same reason, Chaste Marriage may as well be called, a virtue, or of kin to a virtue: both improperly enough. Does he then place the virtue, in the undertaking, or vowing of it, as Papists do? That seems his meaning: But that is no virtue, the virtue is rather in keeping of the vow, then making it. Then again, how is his Virginity, or single life, perfection, or the greatest degree of perfection? Why marriage should not be a state, and as great a state of perfection, as single life, I see no reason; seeing God himself brought the first couple, from Virginity to a Married state; and hath pronounced it honourable, which he said not of a single life. Let him take it in what sense he please; I shall prove it is neither virtue, nor higher degree of perfection.  
1. It is no virtue, that's proved by some of the arguments to the first question; first, [Every virtue is under some command; but Virginity or single life is under no command.] The Minor, is the Doctor's main assertion: The Major is proved in the first: A virtue must be under some Rule, that guides its conformity, etc. As then, every vice is under some prohibition, so, every virtue must be under some precept. Secondly, if Virginity be a virtue, it hath its opposite vices, (as was said in general above.) But virginity, or single life hath no opposite vices: or what shall they be: what the excess? what the defect? I hope he will not say, Marriage is either of the extremes. Thirdly, things in themselves indifferent, are neither virtues nor vices; nor yet the using or not using of them, virtuous, or sinful: But single life (as also marriage) are in themselves, things indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but left free, to the qualifications of the persons; ergo, they are no virtues, nor vices. Fourthly, No virtue can ever be a vice or sinful: but it may be sinful for some to undertake single life; that is, such as have not the gift of continency. Lastly, that which may fall under a command, may not be called as uncommanded virtue: But single life may fall to some, to be under a command; of which in the next.  
2. It is no high, or higher perfection, than Marriage. This is proved. 1. [Because it is no virtue, as hath been proved,] and of the perfection of virtues, we are speaking. 2. Marriage is an honourable Ordinance of God, Virginity is but an imposition of a man: Now it seems absurd, that a voluntary institution of man, should be a more perfect state, than an Ordinance of God? 3. The undertaking of a thing indifferent, is not commendable in itself, as the neglect of it, is no dishonour, and so no high perfection to undertake it. But Virginity, or single life, is a thing indifferent, only commendable in the end of undertaking it, the greater glory, or service of God, which may be and aught to be our ends in all use of indifferent things; [Whether eat, or drink, etc.] 4. The undertaking a thing, that may be under command, is no high perfection, but a duty: But single life may fall under a command. For thus I argue; [A man either hath the gift of continency from God, (for it is a special gift) and then God calls him to a single life, to be freer to his service; and so it will prove a duty: or he hath not the gift, and then it is his duty to marry,] (as was said long ago.) If he shall say, though a man hath the gift of continency, yet the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. leaves it free for him to marry; and than if he voluntarily abstain, that's the virtue, and high degree of perfection, which he speaks of: I answer, that is denied by some; [That he that knows he hath the gift, may marry, but it his duty not to marry (as above,) Qui potest capere, capiat, is say they, a charge to the able.] And the Doctor himself says in this very place, n. 27. [I hope it is not every man's duty, but at the utmost his, who can receive it.] Where he inclines to think it is a duty to him that can receive it: and then it's no perfection, much less a great one. 5. To place virtue, or perfection, in any thing, or state of life, which God hath not placed in it, is superstitious and sinful: so the Doctor Superst. Sect. 45. But God hath not (though the Doctor hath) placed virtue, a high and more perfection, in single life, then in Marriage; ergo, The Doctor and Papists with him, are sinfully superstitious. And now I come to the last question.   

Quest. 6. Whether there be a greater reward promised to such, then to Marriage, or works commanded by the Law.  
That a Counsel differs from a Precept in this, that the one observed brings a reward, neglected, a punishment; (that's the latter) and the other, (the Counsel) brings no punishment if neglected, and a greater reward if observed, is the doctrine of Papists: the Doctor speaks the same language for the latter part, for his uncommanded virtues; that they are more commendable, more acceptable, more rewardable, then works done, that are under command. This he hath twenty times, I think, at least, asserted, and making Virginity the greatest degree of perfection, far higher than honest and honourable Marriage, must consequently say the same of it; [It is more commendable, acceptable, rewardable, than Marriage.] Which words would beseem a Papist better then a Protestants pen. But to the point, 
Whosoever hath learned to remove corruption (from marriage) shall find the crown of Matrimonial chastity, no less glorious than that of single life. Dr. Hall. Decad. 5. ep. 9 f. See Contempl of Jepthe, ad finem.  I once more desire to see the place of Scripture, where this promise is made; and if it cannot be shown (as I am confident it cannot) than I would first argue thus, ad hominem, & ad rem; [To fasten a promise upon Christ which he hath no where made, is a superstitious vanity, and more, a plain belying of Christ and the Scripture: But to say, that Virginity or single life, is more acceptable, and rewardable, then honest Marriage; is to fasten a promise on Christ, which he hath no where made; ergo,] The Major is the Doctors own assertion: Of Superst. s. 45. The Minor is strong, till the place be produced. 2. To say, that a thing or work done, not under command, is more acceptable, commendable, rewardable, than a thing or work done under command; is high presumption, for men to take upon themselves, to distribute their own honour and rewards: But this the Doctor does presumptuously do, together with Papists: the Major is proved by this, that God hath promised rewards to them that obey his commands, and they may faithfully expect them; but he hath made none such, to things done, beside or above commands, and therefore it is high presumption to expect them. 3. A thing in itself indifferent, if not done, it is no fault, if done, it deserves no commendation; much less than may it expect more acceptance, and greater reward, than a thing done upon command; but Virginity is a thing indifferent; ergo. And for a close of this discourse, it must be remembered, that the Doctor's subject in this debate was Will-worship, uncommanded worship, such as are Rites, and Ceremonies and Festivals: suitable to those Free-will-offerings which were parts, or degrees of Worship; and he fell off from that to things of common life; works of mercy, and states of life, which are not parts of Worship, nor can be called Will-worship, because they are no Worship. Now mark the issue of this discourse; either the Doctor must make Virginity, voluntary Martyrdom, and the rest, Worship; (else they cannot be Will-worship) or else he must say, that his Rites and Festivals, appointed by men, etc. so observed, are more commendable, more acceptable, and more rewardable, than the very institutions of Christ himself, being duly observed by Christians; which if he will say, no Papists can say worse. And this may suffice to be spoken to the first, that of Virginity.  
The next is, the undertaking of Austerities, (n. 27. 
p. 210. n. 27. ) such I suppose, as Fast, and Watch, and the like, not sparing of the body: (I hope he does not mean Eremitical, Monastical, Ridiculous Penances and Pilgrimages, which are part of Romish Austerities) I know not well, what he means by them; only I suppose he intends it of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the text so long before us; making that as good, as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and humility; parts of his Will-worship, which Papists themselves condemn, Vide Estium in locum. The like may be said of his abundant labourings; which must be meant by him, of one that labours in Preaching and propagation of the Gospel, not only above other men, but more than he is commanded (for he is speaking of uncommanded degrees of virtues.) For this I shall only say; this man that is so abundant in labours, either hath gifts and abilities, (together with opportunities) of body and mind, and that's a virtual command: (such talents, are given to be used) or he hath not; and then, as he is under no command, to labour more abundantly than other men, that have them, so he cannot do it, if he would; the former is under command, and so no Free-will-offering. Paul that laboured more than all the Apostles, says, [Not I, but the grace of God with me:] and if he had more grace than they, he was thereby bound to labour more; [To whom more is given, of him more required.] Lastly, for his Martyrdom; he means it of voluntary, spontaneous Martyrdom, offering himself to it, when he hath no call, but liberty to avoid it: 
p. 211. n. 28.  this he calls the most perfect state, (having said before, that Virginity was the highest perfection.) Yet something may fall out [that may hinder, and make it unlawful, to aspire to the most perfect state,] 
n. 30.  even the precept of God may interpose, viz. When some discharge of known duty, or some greater good calls us another way.] Then obedience is better than the richest sacrifice.] Before I go further, I will consider this, what reason is there for this, that a small known duty, suppose to our selves or neighbour, should hinder the offering of the richest sacrifice? when the glory of God stands in competition with a duty to man; is it not fit, that the latter should give place to the former? nothing can bring more glory to God, then true Martrydome: And what good can be greater, than the greatest glory of God, to call us off another way? & make it unlawful to aspire to the most perfect state? nothing can be said, but this, [That obedience is better than sacrifice, the richest sacrifice,] as was said to Saul. But then I would proceed to say, that when ever a man hath not a sufficient call to suffer, he is under some command to avoid it; such as that is, [When they persecute you in one city, fly to another, etc.] which was practised both by Christ and Paul, and others; who held themselves bound to avoid it, while they had possibility to escape, and no direct call of God to suffer; whence it will follow, that if he shall offer himself to suffer, when he may lawfully avoid it, he sins against that command, and against his own life, in the sixth Commandment. The issue than will be this, if God call him to suffer (which he does, when he precludes his escape) than it is a duty, and under command, and so no  offering: If God offer him a way to escape, he sins if he neglect it, against more commands than one; and then he is no Martyr. I refer the Doctor to his own words, p. 109. Of Will-worsh. but he takes no notice of them, I shall therefore here set them before him? Pract. Gat. p. 98. [What is to be said of those, that rather than offer to Idols, did kill themselves? It will be safest to affirm that this was a fault in them.] And those others that offered themselves and their children, to the fire and rage of persecutors, unless he will help them, by some instinct or incitation of God, as he does Samson, which was a virtual call and command, cannot be excused, and scarcely deserve the name of Martyrs. Affected Martyrdom, is no virtue, no perfection, and so, though it may find pardon from God, can in that respect expect no great reward from God: Yet this is the Martyrdom he pleads so much for; a 
* When it may possibly, and without sin be avoided, etc. See pag. 96. numb. 6.  Voluntary Martyrdom, without a command or call from God: which is the Doctrine of Papists, and their practice is according to it; when Priests and Jesuits desperately offer themselves to death, for sedition, rebellion, etc. and call it persecution in the Magistrate, and themselves accounted Martyrs. And this is that which I said, was the Doctrine of Papists, 
n. 30. p. 211.  which I believe all Orthodox Protestant's will disclaim, a voluntary affected Martyrdom.  
But we have here a new distinction of perfection according to the Comandments; [There is one, which is according to, that is, required by the Commandments: Another, that is allowed by the Commandments of the Gospel very well, though they require it not of every man, or lay it under precept, and such is that of Martyrdom,] which he spoke of before. But I think I may safely say, [There is nothing allowed by the Commandments of the Gospel, which is not also required by the Law.] That of [requiring of it of every man,] is a very blind: For neither Law nor Gospel require every duty of every man, or of the same man, at all times. He knows affirmative precepts bind not ad semper; but when such and such circumstances meet, to bring him under the obligation of those commands: And he knows also, that there are particular commands, for men in such a station, or relation. A command to a Minister binds not any of his people: that to a master, binds not a servant, and so of the rest: That of showing mercy binds not the poor, that wants ability to exercise it: Or if he have ability, it binds not where there is no object of mercy. Now put it to his case of Martyrdom; himself said, numb 27. [When either I am not competently furnished with strength, from God, to go through with it, or have not any reason to persuade myself that I shall be so furnished; then the undertaking such heights may prove treacherous, etc.] He might have said also when I have no call from God, but an offer rather to escape, than it may be treacherous to undertake it: for than hath he no reason to persuade himself, he shall be furnished with strength to go through with it. [What is not of faith is sin?] God hath promised to give strength in trouble, which he calls us to, but if we will voluntarily thrust ourselves into sufferings, (though of Martyrdom) we have no promise (witness Peter professing to die with his Master, and rushing into danger) of strength or assistance; and we do not trust, but tempt God. Now God does not call all men, or at all times, 
p. 212. n. 31.  to Martyrdom: [This (says he) is the evincing of my assertion against himself; for upon that I infer, therefore Martyrdom, which is the highest degree of perfection, is not under any command.] Take out but those words (which is the highest degree of perfection, which is proved false) and see what a demonstration he hath made: [God calls not all men to be Martyrs, therefore Martyrdom is not under command.] Does it not as well follow, [God at sometimes, calls some men to be Martyrs, therefore Martyrdom is then under command,] and then it's a duty, and no such perfection, as he talks of. And on the other side, if any man without a call, shall rush into a conceited Martyrdom, it is much less an high perfection, but an imperfection rather, to say no worse. But will it follow, Martyrdom is under no command, because it is not so to all? or at all times? when it is not under command, it is no virtue or perfection; and when it is a virtue or perfection, it is under some command.  
But I had like to have forgot the Doctor's Sarcasme, and the glory of his Martyrdom. The Reformation old, 
n. 30.  or new, doth not please the Dr. and therefore he flings fire and arrows at it, and says, Am I not in sport? for thus he says, [I never thought that our English Reformation, 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, is the Martyrs and Saints out of the Kalendars; if the Diatribist, he now one of that triumphant Church, etc.] (n. 30.) Good Sir, whom doth this concern? The old and new Reformation honour true Martyrs as much as Papists, or yourself; though they do not approve of your voluntary Martyrdom, which is proved both Popish and conceited; and though they do not dedicate holidays to them, and make them as holy as, if not holier, than the Lords day, our Christian Sabbath: And if you be guilty of this piece of Popery, you may have free leave for me. But see how fain the Doctor would be a Martyr, at least a Confessor; 
p. 212. n. 30  [He is well pleased to suffer this sword of the tongue, till God shall please to call him to any higher trial.] It cannot be denied but the persecution of the tongue, for righteousness sake, is a lesser Martyrdom, Matth. 5.11. but there hath no sword of the tongue touched the Doctor, but the sword of the Spirit; which hath smitten those opinions, wherein he complies with Papists in their errors: and if he will needs be counted a Martyr for this suffering, he may go and join the Papists as Martyrs with him, for being confuted by our Reformed Divines, in the same opinions and errors. And now let him glory in this his voluntary Martyrdom.  
For a number or two, the 31. and 32. there is nothing found that hath not been spoken to, about 
* He takes for granted, I allow degrees of perfection; which I twice there deny.  degrees of perfection (I said degrees to perfection) acknowledging none in, or of perfection; to which enough afore: only I observe on passage; [When the precept binds to no more, then to be merciful in some degree, it is evident it binds not to be merciful in the highest degree, etc.] This is that which I noted above; if the precept bind to no more but to some degree of mercy, than he that shows the least degree, fulfilleth that commandment, though he be able to give more, and the party needs much more; and so this man is perfect in mercy, though there be not the highest degree of mercy or perfection. This doctrine I am persuaded will please covetous men exceedingly well; the Commandment binds to no more, then to be merciful in some degree. But I leave it, and proceed.    

Sect. 46. But than thirdly, (says he) the perfection we are commanded by Christ, is capable of degrees, etc.  
IN answer to this, I cited a sentence of Saint Hierome, [Charity, which cannot be increased is in no man, etc. and what is lesser than it ought to be, is faulty, in vitio est, etc.] (Which afterwards, he altars, into ex vitio est. n. 36.) This place whether it was Hieromes, or Augustine's, or in both, 
It's August. ad Hierom. ep. 62. p. 213. n. 35.  (for I find it cited, severally, and it matters not which it was;) he endeavours first to avoid, by this distinction; [It speaks of an universal impartial observation of the whole Law; and than it 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 it guilty of some sin, in other particulars.] Which is as if he should say, a man may be perfect in this or that particular virtue, as charity, etc. though he sins in other particulars; and so be not perfect in the universal observation of the whole Law. And this is the answer of some Papists, that in some particular acts of virtue, a man may be sinless: citing for it, very learnedly, that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.28. & 36. [If thou marry thou hast not sinned, etc. he sinneth not, let them Marry.] True (says Chamier and others) Marriage itself is no sin; but there may be sins committed in Marrying, in them that Mary. And they assert, (contrary to Papists and the Doctor) [That there is no act of virtue, that we exercise, but some sin cleaves to it.] But if a man may be perfectly without sin in one virtue, why not in another, and a third, and at last in all; and then some perfectionist may say, he is perfect in all; and (as some friend of the Doctors is reported to say;) keep himself from all sins? Yet the Father's Testimony will not so easily be shaken off. For they instance, in charity which generally respects the whole Law; [Love is the fullfilling of the Law;] that is, perfect love to God and man: if then there be no perfect love in general, to be found in any man here, then there will be none found in the particulars, of love to God and love to man; which quite destroys the Doctor's assertion, [That a man may be perfect in this or that particular virtue, and yet be guilty of some sins, in other particulars.] He suspecting this might be objected, flies to another; [acknowledging that be that fails of any part of his duty, is therein faulty, 
p. 214. n. 36.  yet no man can infer hence, therefore every regular act and obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin.] But this is a secret calumny against his Adversaries; as if they were of opinion, [that every regular act, short of perfection, were a sin.] Papists indeed charge Protestants with this slander; but they have been refuted many times over. It becomes not a Protestant to join with them, in this forged cavillation. The Doctor hath heard it often, [Bonum ex integris causis, malum ex quolibet defectu: But let him (if he please) charge this upon Saint Augustine, who says expressly, Peccatum est, cum vel non est charitas, vel minor est quam debet. De perfect. Instit. ad rat. 15. We say only, it is sinful, not a sin.  
That will not do, 
n. 37.  he must try another: [perfection is capable of two notions; unsinning obedience, or an higher degree of exercise of any particular virtue, chastity, mercy, etc.] of the latter he intends it: But now he is gone from his former glosses, of a Latitude in perfection, and degrees of that perfection, making the lower (if not the lowest) degree of mercy, to be perfection: now, perfection signifies an higher degree of exercise, of mercy, etc. Then his lower degrees, at least, are imperfect, and no perfections; And if so, why are not his higher degrees imperfections also, seeing they come short of the highest, which indeed is only perfection.  
But I shall desire to know, what is the highest, or higher degree of chastity, (one of his instances) which is not under a law of Moses, or Christ in the Gospel? suppose a man should attain to the chastity of the Law (which the Doctor made imperfect) yet if he attained not to the highest degree of chastity, which the Gospel requireth, surely he will not be perfect in chastity. And (supposing a man arrived there) can a man ascend to an higher degree of it, than Christ requires in the Gospel? I desire to know, what that is, or how it may be manifested? Suppose a man arrived so high, as not to lust in his heart; no concupiscence stirring there, etc. this were, I think, the highest attainable in this life, (if not in the other life also) yet this is none of the Doctor's perfection, which must be above all command, to make it more acceptable, and more rewardable: for this highest degree of chastity, is under command, and so no uncommanded virtue, or perfection. I know not what the Doctor can instance in, to make an higher degree of exercise of this particular virtue of chastity, that is not under command, unless he will produce, Virginity or single life, & make that, (as he does) an higher virtue and perfection, (he says, the highest) because it is not under command. And if so, then as he knows, there is, or may be an impure Caelibate, or single life; so let him take heed, that he charge not honourable Marriage, with some degree of unchastity, or as a lesser chastity, as Papists do. In a word, perfect chastity consists in punto: and the least spot (as in pure white linen) renders it defective, and imperfect. Whence it follows, that there are no degrees in the perfection of chastity, though in chastity itself, there may be degrees: provided that we yield, that what is short of that highest degree of perfection, is so far sinful, or imperfect.  
And now I am charged with another Imputation, that I would make the world at least suspect, 
n. 39  [that the Doctor holds and teaches perfection in this life, and calls it, little justice.] I did not charge him with any such thing; but upon supposition, left it doubtful, because though some passages incline that way, yet I found him not directly asserting it; but seemingly the contrary numb. 36. [Fullest perfection, which cannot be increased, is not to be found in any man in this life.] But upon consideration of what he says now, I may be bold to say, he does teach perfection in this life, 1. In saying only, the fullest perfection is not to be found in this life; therefore some perfection is to be found in this life. 2. He maintains degrees of perfection of virtues, both under and above commands; and I should think, perfection above command, is a full, if not fullest perfection. But if any shall say, the Doctor does not assert unfinning perfection in this life; 
See n. 41.  I shall say, that he does too: for thirdly, though he deny universal unsining perfection, yet he affirms, sinless perfection in the exercise of some particular virtues, chastity, mercy, etc. Yea, not only the higher degrees, but any degree of perfection, he makes to be sinless, and to fulfil Christ's precept in the Gospel; as we shall hear presently; and is angry that any should charge the lower degrees of perfection, to be sins, or sinful: for if he yield them to be sinful, he denies their perfection, or else speaks contradictions, 
p. 215. n. 39  imperfect, sinful perfection. His cavil at my change of (if it be) into (if there be) will not help him; He spoke of the perfection of mercy before, s. 46. and then says, [If it be not that, but any perfection acquireable in this life, etc.] which leaves a suspicion, and more, that he holds some perfection in this life; adding, [it will be capable of degrees and growth also.] And this I charged with contradiction: which he endeavours thus to avoid; 
n. 41.  [What contradiction can there be, in affirming that in this virtue of loving enemies, mercy, etc. there are degrees, and consequently possibility of growth also?] Truly none at all, but he was speaking of perfection itself; that this perfection was capable of degrees and growth, 
n. 40.  which to me seems still a contradiction. There was little justice in this (his own words) to change the question, I hope he will be sensible of it. But he says, [Love and mercy to enemies, etc. 
Some degree attainable in this life, etc. n. 40.  is certainly attainable in this life; and no heresy to say, that by the grace of Christ, one may obey such a precept of Christ's, when Paul professeth unlimitedly, he can do all things through him that strengthens him.] That the virtues named, are attainable in this life, I never doubted, in some measure; but to say, perfection in those virtues, is attainable in this life, is next to an heresy, a Popish error at least; and so much the more suspicious in the Doctor, because he makes use of the same text that they do, for their perfection of Virginity, or Caelibate; yea, perfection to keep the whole law. [Paul professeth unlimitedly he can do all things, etc.] Let us hear an ingenuous Papist interpreting this text, against his fellows and against the Doctor, 1. 
Estius in loc.  [Paul having before, Phil. 4.11.12. spoken great things of himself, lest he should seem too arrogant, (as they that plead perfection in this life, are) he refers all to the power of Christ; I can do all things, but through Christ, that strengthens me. 2. The sense is, all those things before mentioned, and all other things, which are to be suffered by me, I am enabled and do perform, by Christ] Not all things unlimitedly as the Doctor phrases it; for than he might fulfil the whole Law, and be unsinning perfect in this life: which he cap. 3.12. renounced. But says the Doctor, [by the grace of Christ, one may obey such a precept of Christ's, as [Love your enemies, etc.] This is equivocally spoken, it may mean, perfectly obey it, to the highest pitch of it, (and that the Doctor dare not speak, what ever he thinks, for he speaks doubtfully; [It is attainable by them which have sinned, and do still sin, in other things, and perhaps in some circumstances of this.] Mark it, sin in other things, (and not in this) or perhaps in this, etc. perhaps not in this, what ever they do in other things:) or it may be meant, in some measure they do obey that precept, love your enemies; and that no man denies. In a word, the perfection meant by Christ, Matth. 5. last, Be ye perfect, is not an unsinning perfection in general, or in those particular virtues, of loving enemies, or mercy; as if attainable in this life; but only an exhortation to Christians to aspire to that high perfection, the copy whereof is in their heavenly Father, which they can never attain unto, at least not in this life. As when the Apostle says, [Be ye holy, as he is holy,] he does not mean that any can perfectly keep that precept, but only that they should endeavour after perfection of holiness, 
2 Cor. 7.1.  [perfecting holiness in the fear of God.]  
And now the Doctor complains of my sharp discipline, 
p. 216. n. 44  exercised upon a saying of his, [If the perfection be not acquireable in this life, 'tis certainly not under Evangelical precept now, etc.] This I said was strong and strange confidence; that was all the discipline upon it, except my reasons to prove it; which was doctrine rather than discipline, in his sense. I shall produce them in order, and consider what he says to them. [1. The Law itself requires perfect obedience of Christians.] To this he says, two things, [1. The Law, not the Mosaical, but that of the first covenant, required perfect unsinning obedience; but this is not now in force with faithful penitent Christians, who are not now under the Law, but under grace: the second Covenant, which requires not innocence, but repentance sincere, not perfect obedience.] But here are many misadventures. 1. The Catechist told us. [The Judaical law, did represent to us the first covenant, by requiring perfect obedience, and pronouncing a curse upon him, that continued not in all things, etc.] Pract. Cat. p. 8. this is now contradicted. 2. This Law Mosaical, the moral Law, is still in force, to unbelieving and impenitent Christians, they are still under the Law, and under the curse, though it should not be in force with faithful and penitent ones. 3. But even faithful Christians and penitent, are under the Law, as it is a Rule of righteousness, though not as the first covenant or else the Doctor must turn Antinomian. 4. Nor is it Orthodox to say, the covenant of grace (or the Law in the hand of a Mediator) required not innocence, but repentance, I● requires both, though it is contented with repentance, and the Law as the first Covenant, required sincere, as well as perfect obedience; and the Gospel requires no less. The very Gospel requires perfect obedience, (the Doctor says perfecter) as well as the Law, 2 Cor. 7.1. but then the rigour of forfeiture in failing, is by another's perfect righteousness abated; there's mercy concerning this, which the Law knew not of. No repentance would serve there. But he says, secondly, [It cannot be said, that the Law is the Rule of Evangelical righteousness, i. e. of that righteousness, whereby believers are now said to be justified.] Here are more mistakes; for Evangelical righteousness, is twofold, or hath two parts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rev. 19.8. 1. The righteousness of Justification, and so the Law is not the Rule of Evangelical righteousness, but Faith, or the Law of Faith, as it's called, Rom. 3.27. 2. The righteousness of Sanctification, and so the Law, ever was, and will be the Rule of Evangelical righteousness. And I cannot but wonder, that the Doctor should deny the Law to be the Rule of Evangelical righteousness, that is, by which believers are justified 
* Not separating faithful actions, or acts of faith, from faith, or the Condition of justification, etc.  (at least in part) who makes the condition of the new Covenant, to be, not only Faith, but Obedience, and all other graces, required by the Law; even to Justification, Pract. Cat. p. 28. But that by the way. The second thing I objected, was, [That the Orthodox maintain the Law to be perfect, or the eternal Rule of righteousness, against the Church of Rome.] This he shakes off, 
n. 45.  by saying; [It is but a contention of words, that the Diatribist, (it seems) and some others have espoused against I know not what adversaries.] Sure the Doctor is not so little seen in our Controversies, as not to know, that this is one point of difference between the Romanists and us, concerning the Law; that they put imperfection upon it, and ours maintain it to be the most perfect Rule of moral righteousness. The first difference that Bellarm. puts between the Law and Gospel is this, Lex operum est doctrina inchoata, Evangelium perfecta. But we need not go so far to find an adversary that hath espoused this quarrel: It is the learned D. H. Who was charged by me, [for compliance with them of Rome, in charging the Law with imperfection] This he made my third misadventure, and he undertakes to maintain it, against the Orthodox, 
n. 46. p. 216.  saying, ['Tis evident in that place of the Catech. p. 94. that, first, The words of Christ, that he came, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law. 2. The many express examples of his doing so, in Matth. 5. his additions to the Law; It was said of old,— but I say unto you. 3. The uniform suffrage of all antiquity was the ground, whereon he built his affirmation, etc.] Here, I must confess, I had a strong temptation (to use the Doctor's language) to undertake the examination of that part of his Catech. p. 92. to p. 95. but that I am loath to swell my discourse into a volume, to the burden of the Reader, and trouble of the Printer; for it deserves (as many other passages in that book do) some consideration: The Doctor herein palpably concurring, not only with Papists in this exposition, (excepting but that they make some of those additions, Counsels, not all precepts, as he does) and professing [he should never disclaim the doctrine upon that account, etc.] but with Socinians also, in making Christ a Lawgiver, and not an expositor of the Law; and prescribing a new way of salvation, from that of the Law, not in regard of Justification by faith in Christ; for so it may be called a new way, in opposition to that of the Law; (but this they deny) but in regard of the observation of those new precepts, or Laws, which Christ, they say, makes the way to salvation: And the Doctor does little less; making obedience to the Gospel precepts, to be in part the condition of Justification, as they do, as was touched above. I shall at present, only speak something to the third particular grounds of his Affirmation; [That the Law was imperfect, and had before some vacuities, which now are 
* Christ meant to heighten that which was imperfect. Qu. of Bapt. Inf. s. 4. Requiring what the Law had not required, and so the adding more to it. p. 217. n. 48.  filled up, by Christ.] The first was, [the words of Christ, that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law.] But this looks like a fallacy, called petitio principii, which he asserts, but proves not, abusing his Reader with ambiguity of words: For he confesses, Catech. p. 93. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies two things, [Either to fulfil and perform; or to fill up and perfect; and is rendered sometimes by one, sometime by another.] Why then does he so poorly beg the latter sense, when it may as rationally be read, to perform, or fulfil. As, 1. Take the Law, for the Moral Law only; Christ came not to destroy that, neither by Doctrine, nor Practice, but to fulfil it; otherwise he had not been a sinless, perfect Saviour. 2. If the Ceremonial Law was also intended, that also was fulfilled by Christ, both in his observation of it strictly, as occasion was, and also, in bringing in the substance, of those Ceremonies. 3. The 
* That it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Prophets, frequently.  Prophets) are also mentioned: Now, whether it be meant of their Doctrinal Interpretations of the Law, or their prophecies of Christ; both ways Christ came to fulfil the words of the Prophets; but in no good sense, to perfect, or fill up their vacuities: But again, take the word to signify to perfect or fill up, that may have a double sense. 1. To 
* Non veni solvere, sed ad implere] his viz. additamentis, quae vel ad expositionem, pertinent antiquarum sententiarum, vel ad conversationem in eyes. Aquin. in loc. ex Aug. count. Faust.  perfect or fill up, the full sense of the Law and Prophets, which the Pharisees had evacuated and voided, by their jejune and empty glosses of the Law, and Prophets; and thus all Orthodox Modern Divines, understand it. 2. Or to fill up the vacuities, and to perfect the Imperfections of the Law and Prophets, which is the gloss indeed of some Fathers, the Greek especially, who follow one another for the most part; and of most Papists. And why the Doctor should follow them, (having so many other senses Orthodox) and refuse the senses of the Modern Protestants, I know not, but that he loves to run cross to our own, and chooses often to follow the Ancients, (as the than Pharisees did their Ancestors) into error, rather than to speak truth with ours. The second ground, was [the many express examples of his so doing in that fifth of Matth. his additions to the Law, in so many particulars, introduced with; It was said of old— But I say unto you.] But this ground is as unsound and fallacious as the former; taking it for granted, that those words [you have heard, it was said by (or to) them of old time; signify, you have been taught, and that out of the word of God, or books of Moses,] which is the very question now in hand: whether it do not rather signify 
* Matt. 5.20. Imports he spoke of the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees: except, etc. compared with the former, and following verse.  you have heard, it was said by them of old time, the Pharisees and Scribes your Rabbis; or said by them, to your Ancestors; (for the Pharisees were of some long standing, before our Saviour's time.) They said thus, and thus, corrupting the sense of the Law, but I say unto you, this is the true sense of those Laws, etc. as the instances do make it appear. Concerning the third, [Thou shalt not forswear thyself,] it is vindicated above, ad p. 43. I shall clear the other two from his gloss, not to be directly meant of the word of God, or books of Moses, but as perverted by the glosses of the Pharisees. The first is evident thus, it carries their gloss with it: [Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever killeth, shall be in danger of the judgement.] Now the first part, is the Law of God, by Moses, there is no question of that; but of the sense of it, which they made only to be actual murder, (as our Saviour's Interpretation of it, doth import) and the punishment only to be temporal death, by the Judges. Whereas our Saviour makes lesser degrees of murder, guilty of eternal death. But it's worth the while to consider, what the Doctor understands, by killing, in this Law. [1. 
Pract. cat. p. 99 & 101.  The principal thing is the shedding of man's blood. 2. By way of reduction, other things which are preparatory to that; as 1. Mutilating. 2. Wounding. 3. Entering and accepting of Duels. 4. Oppression of the poor. 5. The beginnings of this sin in the heart, malice, hatred, cursing, etc. all these reducible to this Commandment, as it was given in the Law.] But if the Law prohibited these, sure the Pharisees did not think, nor teach it so: And then Christ was an Expositor and not a Law giver: and if malice and hatred were reducible hither, as preparatories to murder; why not rash anger, and calling Racha, or fool, which are also degrees and preparatories to the main sin. Yea, these were expressly forbidden or condemned by Moses and the Prophets, as were easy to instance; and ergo, Christ doth not give new precepts, but expounds the old Law, and vindicates it from their false glosses. The like may be said of the seventh Commandment which they glossed only of the outward act of adultery: when as our Saviour shows, 
Prov. 6.25. & 23.33.  the Law extended to the lustings of the heart; which are clearly forbidden in the Old Testament. The third ground of his affirmation was, the concurrence of some Greek Fathers, in this gloss: who, in this, (as in other things not a few) were confessedly mistaken, and in other things rejected by the Doctor himself: though herein embraced by him, in opposition to Calvin; as some Papists have acknowledged some interpretations of Scripture to be more proper and genuine, but yet reject them, because they hate Calvin, who was of that opinion. The arguments whereupon the Fathers built their Interpretation, are of no strength; 1. [Because Christ under the Gospel, gives either higher or plainer promises, than he did before; eternal life, as those of a temporal Canaan.] As for plainer, it may be granted, but that makes no difference in the Law, the Jews being under clouds and shadows, Christians in the Sunshine. And for higher, there could be none higher than eternal life, and glory; and that was promised in the Law and Prophets, only not so clearly, and frequently, as in the Gospel. 2. [Because he gives more grace, to perform them, then before he had done.] To this, I would say, 1. This makes no difference, but rather seems to imply, that the precepts were the very same; there was only less grace dispensed to perform them. 2. If he do give more grace, yet if he lay higher precepts, of greater perfection, than the Law required; a less strength to a lesser burden, might do as well, as a greater, to a greater; yea, no doubt, some of the Saints under the old dispensation, did perform them as exactly, as any under the new: then, either grace was the same to both, or the Law equally perfect to either. They did, I say, perform those very duties, which he says, are required by Christ's new precepts, as exactly, as any under the Gospel dispensation. But the Doctor will perhaps evade or avoid this, by saying (as he does,) [These were above that which the Law required, and so were works of Counsels, or supererogation, more acceptable, and more rewardable: not necessary, before Christ advanced, and perfected the Law.] But though it concerned the Doctor rather to confirm his Affirmation (which he hath not done, in his Catech. or here) than me to prove a Negative; yet I shall propound an argument or two, for my opinion; [That Christ did not give new Laws, or perfect the old, as being imperfect before, but only reduced the Law, corrupted by the Pharisees, to it's true and genuine sense.] Or which will come all to one; [That the Law is in itself perfect, without imperfection, and consequently needed no Additions of Perfection.]  
1. The Old Testament every where pronounces the Law to be perfect, Psalm 19.7. & Psalm 119.96.  
2. The sum of the Law, and the highest degree of perfection, is the same with that given by Christ in the Gospel, [Thou shalt love the Lord, with all thy heart, etc. and thy neighbour as thyself 
* Ver. 33. This is more than all whole burnt-offerings & sacrifices, all Freewill-offerings. : there is none other Commandment greater than these,] Mark 12.31. mark that; there is none greater than these. If there had, here was a fit time for Christ to have declared it: Then it follows, that Christ added no new Commandments to the old, and so nor did, nor could perfect the Law.  
3. The Law of Moses commanded perfect obedience; ergo, itself was perfect; the antecedent is thus proved, if the Law required not perfect obedience, than there was some degree of disobedience, which was no sin, for where no Law, no transgression; but no degree of disobedience, but it is a sin. 2. The Law set God for the pattern of holiness, Levit. 11.44. So (and no more) does the Gospel. Matth. 5. last. 1 Pet. 1.15, 16. This was cited by me, but waved by the Doctor.  
4. If Christ in that Sermon, require nothing, which was not required by 
* Gloss. Nisi abundaverit, referendum est ad intellectum Pharisaeorum, non ad continentiam veteris Testamenti, Aug. contr. Faust poenem enim omnia quae monuit, vel praecepit Dominus inveniuntur & in illis veteribus libris. Aquin. in locum.  Moses and the Prophets, but the very same, than he came not to perfect the Law, but confirm it, by a true exposition of it. The consequence is clear; the Antecedent is proved, by the particulars in every Commandment; which they call additions, but are but explanations of the true extent of the Law: As rash anger, reproachful terms of Racha, fool, etc. spoken by way of contmpt and revenge, to vex and fret a brother, as the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chrys. in loc. If the Law cut off the branch, much more the root.  root or degrees to murder, tending to death, etc. are forbidden in the Old Testament, and blamed as ●…s. So the lustings of the eyes, or heart, are often forbidden; to say nothing to the third Commandment: So love of enemies, doing good to them, etc. are required by Moses and the Prophets, and practised by holy men in those times, as a degree to that perfection which the Law called for: So those virtues, of Spiritual Poverty, Mourning, Meekness, and the rest, are commanded and commended in the Old Testament, as conformities to the Law; ergo, no new Laws, nor higher perfections, in the Gospel. These and many other arguments are used by our Divines, against Papists, and Socinians, in this point: I leave them to the Doctor's consideration, and proceed to what now follows.  
And that is another heterodox assertion, 
p 2●7. n. 47  [Acquireable perfection may be (and some degrees of it, is) under precept, but unacquireable perfection is not Christ's easy yoke, is not now made up to us of impossible precepts.] Now he knows, 1. That our Divines maintain, there is no perfection acquireable in this life; against Papists, etc. 2. That I have said and proved, there are no degrees in, but towards perfection. 3. That it's also proved, the highest perfection is under precept, and none above it. 4. Then it follows that unacquireable perfection, is under precept. 5. Christ's yoke, is not therefore said to be easy, because it is not made up of impossible precepts, or made up of possible precepts, for so it is not absolutely true, even Christ's precepts some of them, are in themselves impossible with respect to our present weakness. But it's said to be easy, because what is not, or cannot be done, is pardoned; and what is done, in sincerity, is kindly accepted. Now that unacquireable perfection is under precept, and that Christ's yoke is made up of impossible precepts, (to us) I prove by this one argument; [To love the Lord our God, with all our heart, soul, mind, strength, is a precept of Christ's, as well as of Moses; but this perfection is to us impossible in this life, and unacquireable, say all Orthodox Divines; ergo.] Yet here the Doctor goes on, to assert; [That 
* Universal charity was granted not acquireable in this life. n. 34, 35. But Universal purity, is the same with that, and confessed under precept here. n. 48. p. 217  universal purity, is now more severely required of all Christians, in an higher degree than it had been under the Jewish oeconomy.] Though I am not of his mind in this, the same universal purity being always required by the Law, though Christians have more grace and stronger motives, to endeavour it; yet I shall make some use of it, and tell him, that there is no higher perfection to be found, than an universal purity, which is only to be had in heaven: and this being (as he says) under evangelical precept, I cannot but wonder where he will find, [higher degrees of those and other Christian virtues,] which are above universal purity, which is under precept; why thus, he says, [Christ came to perfect the Law; so he might do, and yet leave some degrees of mercy, etc. free, and not under precept.] See but the progress of this discourse; the Law required perfect obedience, but yet left some degrees free: The Gospel that requires higher perfection than the Law, even the highest acquireable, universal purity. Is not this enough? No, then come the Papists, and the learned Doctor, and tell us of many degrees of perfection, above all Law and Gospel commands; Oh, proud nature, whither wilt thou climb! these men think it below them, to aspire to do their duty only, to arrive at commanded perfection, 
* Because they would not have their piety restrained within those narrower bounds, etc. Fest. sect. 28.  unless they may climb above the very Angels, Seraphims, and Cherubims, (who content themselves, with commanded obedience and perfection) and do much more than is commanded; and make God himself to be in their debt, for greater acceptance, and reward.  
But if Christ hath perfected the the Law, 
p. 218. n. 49 See p. 177. n. 13.  and given new precepts of higher perfection, how can it be said, that Christ's is an 
* The liberty consists, in taking off, not imposing weights.  easier yoke, then that of the Law, and not rather heavier? Those three ways noted by him will not serve the turn; first, [The taking off the burden of Ceremonies. 2. The taking away the damning power of the least sin. 3. In giving greater strength.] for the second, the taking of the damning power of the least sin, was common to the believing Jews, with Christians; and to unbelieving Christians, the least fin is now as damning, as then; and so the yoke is as heavy as it was to them. For the first, the taking of the burden of Ceremonies, is no great ease; for if Christ hath set the moral Law to an higher pitch of perfection, and [Universal purity is more severely required of all Christians in an higher degree then under the Jewish oeconomy,] as the Doctor newly asserted, n. 47. And if [Christ hath put some things under precept which were not under precept by Moses Law.] I shall add his own words, 
p. 218. n. 49  [In this one respect, there lies more weight on a Christian, then did formerly on a Jew.] Instead of lessening, Christ hath made the burden heavier; one degree of moral perfection, is an harder burden, than all the ceremonial Laws: Those they might with some care and diligence exactly perform, being but external Rites; but no care or diligence of a man without grace, can rise to one the least degree of moral perfection. And to natural men, the Law is every whit as exact, and yet impossible to observe, as afore; and Christ hath not eased their burden at all, but they lie under the curse of damnation, for every the least breach of the Law. But what an increase of weight will Christ's new moral precepts of higher perfection, lay upon them? For instance, if the sixth Commandment forbade only the outward act of murder, and the seventh only actual adultery, as the Pharisees at least (if not the Doctor) supposed, and Christ have added new precepts, to make rash anger, and reproachful language to be murder, and the very lustings of the heart to be adultery, a natural man hath a much heavier burden than a Jew: for it's not impossible for him to abstain from the acts of those sins, and so to fulfil the letter of those Commandments: but very difficult, if not impossible, without great grace, to prevent anger and lustings of the heart. But he says, [That weight is abundantly recompensed by other respects.] That must be, one way, because he gives more strength, by giving more grace. But 1. that is, not given to unbelieving Christians, who yet lie under these new weights. 2. Nor is this to make the yoke lighter, but heavier, only giving more strength to bear it: but a lesser strength to a lesser burden, might do as well, as was said above. 2. He speaks indeed of another way of easing the burden, [The gainfulness of the new yoke, will make it light, though it be a yoke, Pract. Cat. p. 95.] But when the burden is increased, to the proportion of the gain, there will be little ease in that; and if love of gain only make it easy, it seems more mercenary, then ingenuous. This is but one of the Doctor's new Philosophical Speculations.   

Sect. 47. Whence it is apparent, etc.  
ANd now we are come to a new debate, 
p. 219. n. 52  [Whether every man be bound to do that which is best.] The falseness of the affirmative, the Doctor undertakes to discover. 1. [By the words of the Apostle, he that Marries doth well, but he that Marrieth not, doth better.] I said, well and better there refer to worldly good; in those persecuting times: So the Apostle, ver. 26. [For the present distress.] This he says, [will be soon shaken asunder. 1. By considering that, well belongs to moral goodness, ver. 28. If thou Mary thou sinnest not; doing well, is not sinning, and that's a moral good.] But I pray Sir, is not, doing well, more than not sinning, if taken of moral good? and if taken of worldly good, not sinning, is not doing well. The truth is, the Doctor here equivocates with us; these texts have no respect to one another in regard of good and evil moral: [It's good, for the present distress, I say, it's good for a man so to be,] to be a Virgin or unmarried: This must necessarily be understood of a worldly good, in respect of the present distress, to prevent trouble, etc. But if Good be meant of moral good here, than it must needs follow, that it's morally evil to Marry; it's evil for a man so to be, that is, to Marry; moral good, and moral evil are opposed; not moral good, and worldly evil. The 28. ver. is an answer to a secret objection (which the Doctor makes by his sense;) If it be good not to Marry, morally good, then it's morally evil to Marry. No says the Apostle, if thou Marryest, thou sinnest not: but take this with it, such shall have trouble in the flesh; that is, worldly evil, at this time attends upon Marriage; therefore it's worldly good, not to Marry, though it be no sin to Marry. Hence the 38. ver. alleged by the Doctor, must be understood of the same kind of good; both the well, and the better: He that Marries does well, there's no sin, but only trouble in it; but he that Marries not, does better, (supposing the gift of continency, else he does worse not to Marry) because of the present distress; there's no sinning in either; but in worldly respects, he does better, that Marries not. But the Doctor hath a second answer: 
n. 53. p. 219  [Marrying is quite contrary to worldly good, such shall have trouble in the flesh.] This sure is a great mistake, how is Marriage contrary to worldly good? not in a worldly respect, as Marriage is a civil thing; if Marriage be good, as it is, and necessary for some; worldly troubles are not contrary to Marriage, but many times coincident. Not in a moral respect, is Marriage quite contrary to worldly good: for moral good & worldly good or evil are not contrary: But if worldly good, as Marriage is, be opposed to worldly evil; they are not yet contrary, but divers things in the same subject: Marriage good, and troubles ill. A third answer is from ver. 32. [The advantages of Marriage; the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, etc. which are (not barely worldly) spiritual advantages, and a greater moral or spiritual good, than the caring for the things of the world to please a yoke-fellow:] But, 1. Every thing that may be an advantage to a moral and spiritual good, is not presently to be accounted itself, a moral or spiritual good: Riches are a great advantage, to do more good, but yet are not moral goods. A Church is an advantage to the public service of God, and in some sense, better than a field or wood, yet not a moral good; and many such like. And it may be said, he that hath riches, is better than he that wants them, not morally, but in respect of a worldly advantage to do more good; and they that may serve God in an house or field do well, but they that have a Church do better; that is, have better accommodations to serve God; which yet are neither moral nor spiritual goods: say the like of Marriage, and single life. But this (he says) Paul spoke of him that hath the gift, [That if he Mary he does well, if not, better;] that is, say I, neither ways he sins; but in regard of freedom from the troubles of the times, and more liberty to serve God, he that Marries not, doth better; which if he will understand of morally better, he having the gift and yet Marrying, 
1 Cor. 12. last.  should do ill, that is, sin; for he is bound to do what is best, if in his power; as here it is supposed to be. Mark once more the Doctor's words, [Is not the holiness of 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?]. 1. This supposes a man that is Married cannot be holy in body and spirit, and care for the things of the Lord, as the unmarried may: which is a dishonour cast upon God's ordinance, of honourable Marriage. 2. That a Married man does barely care for the world, to please his wife. 3. That it is not as morally good for a married man, to care for his family, and to please his wife, as for the unmarried, to care to please God: when both please God, and there need no comparison. 4. If Virginity, or single life, were morally better, than Marriage, the Apostle neglected the chiefest argument to persuade it, the greater reward in heaven, as a greater good work; for so the Doctor determines; this  offering, is more commendable, acceptable, rewardable. But not one word of this, in all the Scriptures: What ever some Ancients, and many Papists presume to dictate, of an higher glory for Virginity, then for Marriage; and use this, if not as the only, yet as the chiefest persuasive. Hear what some of the Ancients, who extolled Virginity enough, if not too much, 
In laudem Basilii orat. 22.  to the disparagement of Marriage, say: 1. Greg. Nazianz. commending the children of Bazil the elder, says, [Some of them so used their Marriage, that it was no hindrance to them, that they might not aspire to an equal glory of virtue, with the Virgins.] That is, were as holy in body and spirit, and cared for the things of the Lord, as much as they. Next, Saint Chrysost, with respect to the reward, 
Ad Hebr. c. 4. orat. 7.  hath this saying, [Use Marriage with meet moderation, and thou shalt be the first in the kingdom.] More might be added, but these shall suffice; much being spoken to this afore.  
His second argument, 
p. 220. n. 54.  against my position, was this, [The best being superlative supposes the positive to be good; but if bound to the best, that which were only good, were evil:] This consequence I proved to be naught, by an instance; and now I add, it follows only, that that which is not the best, is less good; good, I say by indulgence, but so far sinful, as they are short of perfection. [All our righteousness, 
n. 55.  is as filthy rags,] said the Prophet, and Greg. after him; [All humane justice, if it be strictly judged is injustice.] He cries out of my inconstancy; I said before, good works were not evil, and now to be injustice: And are not both these true? They are not evil, that is sins, as wrought by faith: but they are sinful and injustice, if strictly judged by the Law: said not the Prophet both these in one sentence, and Gregory the same? What prevarication is this in him? Does he not say the same himself in his second answer? [When he said, such a thing is good, and another best; he never meant, that either of them is not convincible by God, to have some mixture of evil.] What said I other than this? But he elsewhere says more; that not only the best, but the lower degrees of good, may be sinless: [That the evil which is or may be, (and so may not be) adherent to it in some other respects, being pardoned by God in Christ, the lower degree being good, an act of obedience to Christ's command, that which is higher, and so better than that, may yet be somewhat not commanded, and so a Nedabah in a Christian.] Where he supposes, first, That it may be sinless in itself, though evil may adhere to it in other respects: this is expressly affirmed by him, p. 223. n. 5. of which anon. 2. He also takes for granted, that the higher degrees of good, are under no command; which is disproved above. 3. If that Nedabah, or work of higher perfection, be a part of that man's righteousness, (it's abundant righteousness with the Pharisees and the Doctor) sure, the Prophets, Gregory's, and his own concession, will in Gods strict judgement, affirm it to be unrighteousness. But that's little less than a contradiction, that an act of highest righteousness, not under any Law, should be judged unrighteousness by a righteous God, without a Law, to judge it by. Let him consider it.   

Sect. 48. The next objection raised by him, etc.  
THat we may see how good an expositor of the Law of God, the Doctor is, his answer to the objection, from the first and great Commandment, [Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, 
p. 221. n. 1.  with all thy heart, etc.] is very considerable. He affirms, That the phrase denoteth only, two things, 1. Sincerity of his love to God, as opposed to partial, divided love. 2. The loving him above all other things, not admitting any other thing into competition with him, or in such a degree of love.] First I would say, that these two are almost both one; for what is partial, divided love, but admitting of some other thing into competition with him; and such love, is insincere. He that loves God sincerely, loves nothing in competition with him. 2. To love God above all other things, is the same with, to love nothing in such a degree of love. But all this may be done, and yet a man may be very short of the perfection of that Commandment; To love God, with all his heart, and the rest. And that we may know whence the Doctor learned this Divinity; we find it in Bellarm, and other Papists, one while distinguishing thus, [God is two ways loved with all the heart. 1. Above all other things, sincerely and perfectly, that nothing be set above or equalled with the love of God: and thus, the love of God is under command to us. 2. That no vicious cogitation, may creep in, but that the whole man be taken up with the love of God; and this (say they) is not commanded us in this life.] Just the same with the Doctor, 
〈…〉  who agrees fully with them in the first part of the distinction, and saying those only are denoted, must also agree with them in the latter. Another while they thus distinguish, [The Commandment may thus be understood, that God alone is to be loved, and nothing beside him; or that nothing be loved against God, above God, or equally with God, etc.] The first part is not the scope or sense of the Commandment, for he presently adds, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, etc. The second part, is the same with the first, in the other distinction. And it is remarkable that these distinctions are used by Papists, in the case of venial sins, and perfect fulfilling the Law in this life: The former of these, I observe not the Doctor to assert, but the latter he does frequently; that a man may fulfil the Law to perfection, and that in the lower degrees, and attain to perfection above all command. But in this exposition of this Great Commandment, the Doctor with Papists leaves many, 
Vide Cham. t. 3 l. 11. c. 14. s 2. etc. & l. 6. c. 12. s. 33.  if not all the Ancients who generally hold, this Law not possible to be fulfilled in this life, and to require the highest degree of the love of God, to the utmost perfection. Yet who so great Admirers of the Ancients as they? Let us return to the Doctor's answer, that those things were required by that Law, I granted; but more than this, is also required, 1. Perfect love, with all the faculties and powers of the soul, as the Ancients gloss it: heart, mind, soul, strength. But where is the man that ever did, or can do this? A man may love God sincerely, and above all other things, (the Doctor's gloss) and yet be far short of fulfilling this Commandment: Saint Austin gives the reason [So long as the flesh lusts against the spirit, God is less loved, than he ought.] The Law, I said, [Required perfect love: 
p. 221. n. 2.  such as was in Adam in innocency.] 1 John 4.18. He answers, 1. [That perfect love in Adam, 
p. 221. n. 2.  had a latitude,] and consequently several degrees of that perfect love.] But this is proved false in both, that Adam's love had a latitude, to love God with a less or lower degree, than withal his heart, soul, etc. and that there are degrees of perfect love. 2. [That perfect love in Saint John, is not all one with that which Adam had in innocence; for that I confess (he says) not to be acquireable in this life, whereas the love in Saint John, that casts out fear, is in every Confessor and Martyr.] It's no disparagement to his Confessors and Martyrs, to say they had not perfect love of God; many of them were fearful a long time, even to denial of Christ at first; and the best of them felt many reluctations of the flesh against the spirit; but perfect love casts out all fear. They loved God in sincerity, and above all other things, even their own lives; yet were not perfect in love, though God was pleased to pardon their defects, and accept of their love, etc. [There is no fear in love,] that is, in perfect love, so it follows, [perfect love casteth out fear, and he that feareth is not made perfect in love.] But when shall love be made perfect? Saint John answers, ver. 17. [Herein, or in this, our love is perfected, that we may have boldness at the day of Judgement.] Then love will be perfect, and not till then; how proves he this? [There is no fear in love, he that feareth is not made perfect in love.] But the best Saint, is here troubled with fear; ergo. And I again wonder, that the Doctor should hold perfection of love in this life, acquireable, without all fear, when he holds, the best and highest degree of love and grace in his life, may fail and be utterly lost: Must not he that believes this, be full of fear sometimes, even tormenting fear? How can he love God with all his heart, mind, soul, strength, that fears (by reason of his own frailty, and mutability of his will) that fears God may be his enemy hereafter? Nec hominem amicum possit quisquam amare, cui noverit se aliquando fore inimicum. August. [That one Martyr may be more zealous, and express more intense and fervant love, then another.] Proves, what I say, that neither of them are perfect in love; the Commandment requiring perfect love in all. Sincere love to be capable of degrees, was never denied by me, but affirmed; yet not perfect love: perfection is not capable of degrees; but includes all degrees, and what is short of that, is faulty, in vitio, as Hierome said. 
p. 222. n. 3.  [Sure (says he) if both obey the precept, than they do not offend against it: if not offend, then is not this faulty.] Doth this beseem the Doctor's learning, a learned Catechist? We know but in part, and therefore believe but in part, and obey but in part: So far as we believe, and obey, so far we obey the precept; but as we believe but in part, and obey but in part, so far we offend against it, and so far in vitio, and faulty. Did not himself say, p. 220. n. 54. [Good works, are not evil, but good, though not perfect from all possible mixture of sin.] If in our best works there be a mixture of sin, do they not, as far as they are good, obey the precept; and as there is a mixture of sin, offend against it, and so are faulty? and sure, [every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law,] as he says here. The evasion is, 
p. 222. n. 5.  [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, in this or that performance, etc.] But, first, what ever he does, he knows, I spoke of sinless perfection, even in perfect love; [Otherwise it were not strictly answerable to the Law, and so far faulty;] they are my words there. And I know not how to say, there is, a sinful perfection, without a contradiction. 2. What does he less here, then speak of a sinless perfection, [In this or that virtue, in this or that performance; and as this, though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the man, in whom it is, yet may 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.] 
Ad p. 214. n. 39  This was spoken to before, but here is more plainly expressed, and I shall add a little to it. 1. If it may exclude a mixture of sin, in this or that act, by the grace of God in Christ, (for so he cautions it) why may it not exclude (by the same grace) a mixture of sin, in another act of virtue; and so in a third, and in all, and so exclude it altogether in the man; and then there is an universal sinless perfection in this life, which he hath oft denied. 2. But what needs any such grace of God, to do that, which may be done by an Heathen without grace? He may, in an act of mercy, give as much as any Law obligeth him to give, and so not sin, in giving too little. 3. Neither he nor the Doctor can determine aforehand, how much the Law obliges him to give, (as was said above) but it's determinable only by circumstances, which then, bring it under a command. 4 Neither of them, giving as much as the Law obligeth to, do sin in giving too little: but may they not sin, in giving, in the act of mercy, some other ways? For want of Charity, 1 Cor. 13.3. out of vainglory, in hope of meriting, 
Matth. 6.1, 2.  etc. The Pharisees (its like) gave more than the Law obliged to, (their abundant righteousness, as they called it) yet here was a mixture of sin, not only in the men, but in the very act of Mercy. 5. But what needed the Doctor to limit this sinlesness, to this or that act of virtue, when here he plainly asserts, 
n. 5.  [The lowest of them (of the degrees of virtues) may be sinless, and all the superior, voluntary oblations, more than the strict Law required of us.] How easy is it for such a Teacher, or Catechist, to infect his Disciples with the Popish doctrine of Merit, or Supererogation; if not by doing sinlesly in the lowest degrees of commanded perfection, yet by his superior voluntary oblations, more than the strict Law required of them: but that comes to be considered in the next Section.  
But there is yet a difficulty or two, to be spoken to, the example of Angels, and of Christ himself; [1. In several ranks of Angels one sort (the Seraphims) being more ardent in zeal then other Angels.] This instance was not proper, when we are speaking of the love of God, in men, according to the Moral written Law; but we know not by what Law Angels are governed; yet supposing (which is most probable, though disputable) that there are several ranks and degrees of Angels, each exceeding another in excellence and perfection of nature; then I would say, that each rank was bound to love God, with that height of love, (and zeal) which their nature was capable of, and to love him with a lower degree, as the inferior ranks do, were in them faulty. That universal maxim, will reach them; [To whom more is given, of him more is required.] Now whether the same Angel love God more intensely at one time, than another, is a question, not easily determinable. Adam in innocency might perfectly love God, according to the perfection of his nature, yet not with that perfection of Love, wherewith the lowest Angel loved him: now whether the Doctor will say, that an Angel had not sinned, if he loved God, with that lower degree of love in Adam; I shall leave to him to determine.  
2. The example of Christ, was impertinently brought to prove [that sincere love is capable of degrees.] 
p. 222. n. 5.  For, first, I granted, sincere love in men was capable of degrees, denied it only of perfect love. 2. Love of God in Christ, was perfect not only in sincerity of the virtue, but in that, which the Doctor calls sinless perfection, and so not capable of degrees: Christ, (he says) differs from Angels and men in this, that he was perfect and never sinned (so are also Angels perfect and never sin, and so their example was also impertinently brought, when we are speaking of men) when men are imperfect and faulty the best of them, as the Doctor confesses; and then not perfect in love, and so the lower degrees, are sinful, even when they are sincere in their love. 3. What then is affirmed of Christ, is not common to Angels and men, with him. 1. If it were granted, that Christ was more ardent in one act of Prayer then in another, this is not appliable to the same Angel who is not more ardent in one act, of love or zeal, than another, sure the Doctor cannot prove it. 2. Christ was far more perfect in love then Angels, being God man, not having the spirit by measure; therefore he might supererogate (as I said) in his acts of love and expressions of it, though Angels cannot. 4. Nor then is it common to Christ with men, to love God more in one act then another, being perfect in love, with a sinless perfection; the most that men can do, being but to love God sincerely, which is capable of degrees, but faulty in the lower. 5. Even the sincerity that was in Christ's love, was sinless, and perfect; but so it is not in men, whose love being less or more sincere, is less or more imperfect. 6. His distinction here, of sinless perfection, (which he renounces) and sincerity of this or that virtue, which (he says) consists in a latitude and hath degrees, and a mixture of sin in the man, etc. Is first very improper; for he should have distinguished plainly, [perfection is either sinless or sinful,] (As Papists blush not to do) but this had dashed his plot of perfection in lower degrees (whereof many are with him sinless) as (we said elsewhere. 2. 
Even here the lowest sinless.  If he speak not of sinless (but sinful) perfection, why did he bring in the example of Christ, or Angels, whose perfection is sinless, as well as sincere? sincerity in Christ was not capable of degrees (any more than his perfect love.) And yet the Doctor concludes here, [Why sincerity may not in a pious Christian be capable of degrees, as well as in Christ himself, and (mark it) the lowest of them be sinless there is no reason showed,] when he renounced before sinless perfection.   

Sect. 50, etc. And this makes way for another, and the last objection, etc.  
WE are now drawing to an end of our second Diatribe of Will-worship, and the matter is to consider, how the Doctor will wash his doctrine, from compliance with Romish Supererogation; to which end, he professes well in words, rectifying, and applauding Cyprians sentence, 
p. 224. n. 2.  [That none of the most heroical workers, ever thought their master beholden to them. 
n. 3.  And that it is infinite mercy, that any the most excellent work of ours is rewardable with him,] and that for two or three very good reasons. And yet there will appear but little difference between his Principles and theirs: First, he put a difference [between doing more than is commanded, and doing something which is not commanded.] I said, he that does something not commanded, does also more than is commanded, and so they are, in that sense, both one: and the Romanists do not suppose, that he that hath done more than is commanded, hath done all that is commanded, to set their Supererogation upon. Then it will follow, that he and they agree in this principle; [That Supererogation is founded upon doing something not commanded:] which he makes evident by a second distinction: [To Supererogate supposes, either that the person hath paid God all that is due to him, that is, hath never sinned,] (which is the same (said I) with the first part of the former distinction, that he hath done all that is commanded, which the Romanists do not own.) [Or that having sinned and so become a debtor, he hath paid that debt by satisfaction, by doing something else, which may satisfy God for his sin.] That is, (said I) by doing something not commanded: In this latter, he placed the Romanists opinion. Now this principle is his as well as theirs, [A man may do something not commanded:] This he hath often asserted, and expressly here below, n. 12. [I affirm it possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him.] The sense whereof we shall consider, 
n. 5. p. 225.  when we come at it. But hear what he says here. [I yield that the Romanist is not so gross, as to affirm him that Supererogates, not to have sinned, and therefore never defined that to be the Romanists doctrine.] But sure it is, the Romanists do say and affirm some Saints not to have sinned; the Virgin Mary for one, to be free not only from actual sins, but original also; and he knows who was the man, of whom some of them affirm, 
Bonadventure.  videtur Adam in hoc homine non peccasse: And then there is more reason to found Supererogation upon such as never sinned, then on such as have sinned, and yet pay God by satisfaction: the latter have enough to do, to satisfy for their own sins, and cannot well expect to Supererogate for themselves or others: but the former having never sinned, that is, done all that is commanded, which might satisfy God and his Law, for themselves, might with more colour, undertake to satisfy God for others by doing something not commanded. And yet by the way, I would ask a Romanist, whether if Adam had not sinned, as the Angels do not, he or they could supererogate for themselves or others? If they say, they could not, because they, in doing all that is commanded, did but their duty; then, would I infer, much less can a sinner Supererogate, by doing something not commanded. If they shall say, they might Supererogate, (as their principles and the Doctors too, seem to import) by doing more than is commanded; I would desire to see the reason, why they should not found their Supererogation rather upon that first part of the distinction, [That to Supererogate, supposeth, that the person hath paid God all that is due to him, by doing all that is commanded him, by way of perfect obedience, that is, hath never sinned,] seeing that is more reasonable, as hath been said. I leave them and the Doctor, to resolve this doubt. And this indeed the Doctor comes to n. 8. [Supererogo, 
p. 226.  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, their payments are made.] Mark that, to Supererogate is to lay out all (that is commanded) and more, that is, to pay God all that is due, by way of perfect obedience; and to lay out more, that is something not commanded. Which is that, which he finds fault with in me; that Supererogare is as much, as super quod erogavit lex, (or rather, rogavit, for that was my word, however it was changed into erogavit.) Now upon this, the Doctor makes himself and his Reader merry; 
n. 7.  [About the Etymology of supererogation, which either my fancy or something else (he says) suggested to me, as I did derive Superstition, from Super statutum:] In both he does me manifest injury; in the latter, against his own profession, and I fear his conscience; who said, I did not raise the Etymology of Superstition from Super statutum, (as indeed I did not) but only said, that Superstition was by our Divines, well applied, to signify that which the Scripture calls addition to the word, or Rule of Worship, as being Super statutum, which rather respected the thing, than the Origination of the word Superstition; as appears above. In the former he does the same, for I do not make the super quod rogavit lex, the Etymology, but thus: Supererogare is as much, (that is in sense) as super quod rogavit lex: And this, I shall evidence against all contradiction. 1. I turned to the word, in my Dictionary, and there found, Supererogatio to be rendered, (attesting August. for it) a giving more, then is required; required, by what? but by the Law. 2. Supererogator, rendered, (out of the same Author) one that giveth more than he needeth; that is, more than he is bound to give by any Law. 3. Supererogo; to give moreover; jam ante erogatis, addo; which supposes him to give all required by the Law, and to add something not required by it; and is not all this, as much, as super quod rogavit lex? Again, for erogavit, I find, that it hath this sense, beside others, rogando aliquid elicere, as well as expendere, to lay out: And if the word erogare signify at any time to require, or procure by ask; the Etymology might pass, with reasonable Critics, Supererogare, is as much as super quod erogavit lex. Besides all this; Papists who best understand what they mean by works of Supererogation; 
Estius in 1. ad Cor. c. 9 v. 15.  call them [works of Counsels, that is, those which are commended so, that yet, absolutely there are no precepts delivered concerning them.] That is, works done, more than the Law required. Lastly the Doctor himself, in the place newly cited, from n. 8. says as much as I do, in sense, [Supererogo, is to lay out all and more, and from the opinion of pious men's doing so, the Romanists have raised their treasure of the Church.] Nay, it's more than I said, for I did not say, it is as much, as to lay out all, that is to do all that is commanded by the Law, and more; but only, more than the Law required, though he had not done all required by the Law. And upon this the Dr. founded their Supererogation, refusing the former part of the distinction. But now I would ask, how can the pious Romanists be said to Supererogate, that is, to lay out all and more, if not first, by perfect keeping of the Law, wherewith they are entrusted, and then doing something more, laying out of their own stock, in a Counsel of perfection, and what is this, but more than the Law required? and by so doing, to make satisfaction for others sins, having none of their own to satisfy for. He were simple, that would go about to satisfy God for others sins, by doing things commanded to himself, or to satisfy for others, who needs it for his own sins. It must then suppose, he hath kept the Law, and that he supererogates, by doing more than the Law required; which needing not himself, he is content, it be laid out for others that need it. And that the Romanists do hold many of their pious Saints, can and do perfectly keep the Law, the Doctor is not ignorant, (what he thinks, he can do, I know not; sure I am he says, [Christ's yoke is no made up of impossible precepts,] and so its possible for a pious man perfectly to keep them.] If he say, but he does not hold the most pious man never sinned, though he may attain to such perfection in time, 
* Doing all that is commanded. p. 228. n. 14. The evil which is or may be adherent to it (a good work) being pardoned by God, etc. ad pag. 220. numb. 55. numb. 8.  as to keep the Law, and so, Supererogation cannot be founded upon the first part of the distinction, that the person never sinned: I answer, if those former sins be pardoned, (satisfaction being made by Christ) they are as if they never had been, and then, when he is arrived at such perfection as to keep the Law, that is, to sin no more; then he may do more than the Law required, and so b●gin to Supererogate. Upon this, all the Doctors Grammatical notions vanish into nothing, and I go on.  
A Supererogating work, then, is certainly a work done, which is more than the Law required, or (which in my sense is all one) the doing something which the Law doth not require: which (said I) [Is a derogation from the perfection of the Law of God, and lays imperfection upon it (as the Doctor plainly hath done.] The Doctor is angry at this, and answers, 
●. 11. p. 227  1. [If such works be derogatory to the Law, they are not Supererogatory works, but the contrary.] As if they might not be Supererogatory in the opinion of a Romanist, and yet really derogatory to the perfection of the Law, charging it with imperfection. 2. [His treatise (he says) defends not the thinking a man's self to do more than the Law requires, but to do somewhat which the Law doth not require.] And I say again, is not the doing of somewhat which the Law doth not require, the doing of more than the Law requires? whether the person have ever sinned or not, is another thing; nay, is not Supererogo, to lay out all, and more, in the Doctor's gloss: than it may include both, as was said above. But for charging the Law with imperfection, the Doctor hath said it, and will defend it, but by no new arguments; but the old repeated, and before confuted. And as confidently he again affirms, 
n. 12.  [its possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him.] If I listed to be merry, I might say, its possible for him to do something not commanded him, for it's too possible and frequent to do something forbidden him. Or 2. its possible for him to do some, yea, many things not commanded nor forbidden him, many things indifferent: But more seriously, the Doctor means it of voluntary oblations, that is, voluntary worship, Will-worship, (that's the subject of his discourse) its possible herein for a Christian, to do something not commanded him; yea many things, as Papists do; but how lawfully is the question: Yes, lawfully enough in the Doctor's Divinity; [For as in the Law, so in the Gospel, the Law of Christ, some things are left free and uncommanded.] What things are so left free and uncommanded in the Law or Gospel? Some civil things? All indifferent things? Or some Worship? Of that we speak, not of circumstances of Worship; as hath oft been said: If he assert this of Worship, I shall desire no other Adversary to confute him but himself. As for his [Latitude, and higher degrees of that Latitude, not under precept] enough hath been said afore. The conclusion is this, his doctrine of Will-worship, is founded upon this Popish principle, [Thou a man may do, not something only, but some Worship to God, which he never commanded:] Will worship (he says) is voluntary Worship, uncommanded Worship, this is not only lawful but commendable, acceptable, and more rewardable than commanded Worship, and therein he and Papists do sweetly agree; and why he may not agree with them in their Supererogation, I yet see no reason.  
I said again, that he that does something not commanded, may be said to Supererogate, in respect of him, who doth nothing but what is commanded, as the Pharisees did. 
p. 227. n. 13  He answers [This belongs not to my notion of Supererogating.] Take it then in his notion, Supererogo, is to lay out all and more: He that lays out but all entrusted with him, does but erogare; he than that lays out more than all, is said, supererogare, with respect to the other: and may not, at least will not such a man insult over other men that do nothing but what is commanded, [Lord I thank thee, I am not as other men etc.] Yea, and expostulate with God himself, [Why have we fasted, and thou regardst it not? etc. Isa. 58.] But, [he that thus scorns and exalts himself above other men, is far from doing more herein then is commanded, etc.] True, but yet he may truly, in the Doctor's sense, do something not commanded; though not more, that is all that is commanded and something more: And this is enough to puff up a carnal heart, partly to compensate for something done amiss, and to quit scores with God (as she, Prov. 7.14.) and partly to insult over other men, of lower performances: as experience tells us.  
The Apostle indeed allows, 
n. 13.  a glorying and rejoicing, in the conscience of having done well; but he never allowed or practised, a glorying in doing any thing, which the Law commanded not: as appeared above, in the instance of preaching without wages. The Doctor cannot but know, [That a man without grace, an Heathen or hypocritical Christian, may do many of his works of highest perfection: as give liberally to good uses, keep himself single and unmarried, etc.] But this man uses not to compare himself with others virtues, but with their defects: and he is so far from charity to wish or think other men better than himself, that he thinks himself better than others, and thanks God there is not an honest man but himself, as that proud hypocrite did. I fear, that all Will-worshippers, that think they do more than is commanded, are guilty of some pride and scorn, as humble soever as they seem to be. But I said further,  
They that think they can do something not commanded, do expect to find more acceptance from God, and a greater reward, than they or others do, for doing only what is commanded, and this is a kind of Supererogation; an over-pleasing of God. [This, first, he says, 
p. 228. n. 14. I willingly, and expressly grant it to be my doctrine, that voluntary oblations are more acceptable and wardable with God. p. 229. n. 17.  is nothing to the notion of the word.] I have professed to look more at the nature of the thing, than the notion of the word: and this, I am sure, they that do things not commanded, do expect, as I have said, and the Doctor will confess it presently. But, secondly, he will put in a caution, to make it passable; [That uncommanded works can never satisfy for disobediences, and that it is perfect impiety and folly, to neglect duty, and then to compensate by doing more than is commanded.] First, I observe how the Doctor confounds the terms of his former distinction, doing more than is commanded, is here put, for doing somewhat that is not commanded; which is found also so used, numb. 13. The first of them, for it is twice, (the crime the Doctor found in mine, at the beginning.) But, secondly, the caution will not do the work: For Papists (some at least) do not think, their uncommanded works do satisfy for their own disobediences; but when their own sins are pardoned, (as they think at least) and they enabled to keep the Law, than they think by uncommanded works, to satisfy God for others sins. And the mischief is, that they, that think they can do things not commanded do usually the rather neglect the care of securing of duties, but hope to compensate by doing things not commanded: [You make void the Commandment of God by your own Tradition, and say, it is corban, etc.] But we have here the Doctor's method and pathway to Heaven; it is somewhat long, but it could not well be shorter, and the end will make amends for all, the greater reward. Thus it lies: [He that shall have observed this method uprightly, eschewed evil, in a strict mortifying of lusts, etc. in abstaining from sin, and doing 
[* Doing all that is commanded.] Mark that.  all that is commanded (confirmed by authority of a Poet, virtus est vitium fugere etc.) 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 virtues; I shall not doubt to encourage him to think confidently, and expect from our great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more and greater acceptance, (I shall add, reward also) then the same person could in reason expect, for doing only what is commanded.] I shall add what he adds in the next, 
p. 229. n. 15  and consider them together. [There is no reason to make question, 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, etc.] To all this, I shall speak first in general, and then to some particulars. In general thus, by considering how far an hypocrite may travel in this way to glory. 1. He may abstain from some, yea, many sins, (wherewith some sincere Christian may be overtaken,) and the Doctor will not say, his pious Christian can or doth abstain from all sins. 2. He may do all that is commanded, for the letter of the Law; as Paul himself before his conversion, says, he was blameless; and the Doctor does not say, or does not mean, (though he say all) his pious man, may do universally all that is commanded. 3. When he hath failed (if at least he may fail) he may (in the Doctor's language) secure his retreat by an early humiliation and confession, 
Pray ye to the Lord for me.  as Ahab and Juda did. 4. He may beg pardon of God, and that in Christ, as its like Simon Magus did, who desired others also to pray for him. 5. He may make an outward Reformation of his failings, in many things, as Herod did, and the Doctor will not say, but his Pious Christian, may fail still by infirmity, in some things repent of. 6. After all this, he may use Austerities, Fasting, Watch, and other Penances, for the mortifying of his lusts, at least in pretence, as Papists do, and the Pharisees did. 7. And then he may proceed to superstruct doing of good works of the more eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue: (for I observe none such named by the Doctor, but an hypocrite may do them) as give alms liberally, as the Pharisees did, above what the Law required; [If I give all my goods to the poor, and have not charity,] (supposes the ease possible) I am nothing: He may be frequent in Praying five or six times a day, in Fast, twice or thrice a week, and in other such Austerities as afore: He may make himself an Eunuch, undertake to profess a single life, under pretence to please God better: Nay, he may offer himself to voluntary Martyrdom, (which two last, are the Doctor's highest perfections of all.) [If I give my body to be burned (for Religion, for Christ) and have not Charity.] Supposes that case also possible, for an hypocrite to attain to: May now the Dr. [encourage this man, to think and expect confidently, more and greater acceptance and reward then another, that only hath done what is commanded?] And that with some failings? Perhaps he will say, he does not all these things uprightly, or sincerely, and so loses all. Be it so, yet this was more than the Doctor's eye could discover; for he cannot see his heart: therefore, he might encourage him still, confidently to expect, if not more, yet some acceptance, and reward; if not for abstaining from so many sins, and doing so many things commanded, (because he played but the hypocrite in all) yet for his eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue, a just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, would not let such high perfections go altogether unrewarded: But I shall come to some particulars. And first, with respect to what I said last, it must be supposed, in this distribution of rewards, that uncommanded eminent degrees of virtue, 
Else they are but as Ciphers in Arithmetic which of themselves signify nothing, but make a figure more by conjunction.  and highest perfection, may of themselves expect some reward, or acceptance from God, by whomsoever they are done, though he have not done all that is commanded. For if they give more acceptance and reward in conjunction with commanded virtues, they must give some positive reward single and alone, or joined with lower degrees of virtue, and then an hypocrite may expect some acceptance and reward from God for such eminent virtues, who yet is most abominable to him. 2 Though obedience to commands, may expect acceptance with God, and reward and glory in Heaven, yet uncommanded eminent perfection carries away the prize, or crown of glory: But I desire to know, who gave this authority to these men, to distribute rewards, less to obedience commanded, and more to uncommanded virtues? 3. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth distributes his rewards and prizes, by an act of justice, to the best deserving, not of mercy and favour. But I hope the Doctor will not say so of God, though Papists are bold enough to say so. 4. If this reward be not an act of justice, upon merit; than it must be by way of promise, which is of grace or mercy. For works commanded, are rewarded of mere mercy, Psal. 62. last; if uncommanded works may not plead merit, none can; yet Papists that make commanded works meritorious, do also make uncommanded works more meritorious. If then the Doctor's eminent uncommanded virtues may expect a greater reward, then works commanded, the works of men's devising are exalted above the works of Gods commanding. By what Rule? not of merit or justice, that the Doctor disclaims; not of mercy, for than they must have some promise, the ground of that expectation: but promise he can show none, or let us see the Patent; where uncommanded virtues are promised, I say not a greater, but any reward at all. All the promises in Scripture are made to the obedient, and obedience imports a command; as all threaten are made to the disobedient, which implies a prohibition. And for aught I see, there may be as well some eminent or lesser wickednss not under prohibition, against which there is no threatening, as any eminent virtues, not under some command, for which there is no promise. 5. The Doctor puts us a case, [suppose two men equal in obediences, one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection, this shall have the richer reward.] Just the Popish dream of Aurea and Aureola: But let me put him a case; Suppose two men unequal in obediences (no doubt, but such there are) and he that hath the least of obedience, (whether by frailty or otherwise) hath exceeded the other in acts of uncommanded virtues: which now shall have the greater acceptance and reward? If the latter, than it will follow, that he that hath most sins (such is he that hath the least of obediences) shall have more glory for uncommanded virtues, than he that hath lesser and fewer sins (such is he that hath more obediences) for want of uncommanded virtues. Nay, it will follow, that he that hath less and fewer obediences, but more uncommanded virtues, shall have both less and more glory, than the other; less, because the other having more obediences, should in reason (the Doctors own phrase) expect a greater reward, than he that hath less, and yet more, because he hath more uncommanded virtues: which is a Quodlibet fit for the Romish Schools to determine. If this be not [the intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,] Col. 2.18. I leave it to consideration. Yet the Doctor says, 
p. 229. n. 15  [It's most evident, (the latter shall have the richer reward) whether by considering the degrees of glory in heaven or the rule by which God distributes them still under the Gospel; to every man according to his work.] As for the degrees of glory of Saints in Heaven, he knows, it's a disputable problem; how ever very uncertain how they shall be proportioned, being a work of pure grace and favour, which may give as much to him that comes in to work at the last hour, as to him that came in at the first, and do him no wrong. And as for the Rule of distribution of rewards, according to men's works; that may have a double sense, either according to the quality or kind of men's works, good to the good, and evil to the evil, as oft it is applied, Rom. 2.6. Gal. 6.7, 8. Or according to the quantity, more reward for greater good, and lesser, for lesser, and so greater torments to greater and more sins; & contra: and so it is sometimes used: And for greater punishments for greater sins, its clear by Scripture, which speaks of greater damnation, and easier for Tyre and Sidon, etc. the reason is, because that's an act of justice; but whether more or greater good works shall have greater reward, may reasonably be scrupled, because that's a work of pure mercy, which may do what it will, with its own. However, God will reward men according to their works of obedience to his commands, according to his promise: but not according to men's own devised good works, of higher perfection, and uncommanded; unless they can show us such a promise.  
In the next place, my Charity is slighted and rejected with some scorn; that I said, 
n. 16.  [Ours are not yet come so far, as to think they can merit by such works, as Papists do,] and the Dr. concludes from my confession, [We are not Papists yet, nor yet do I maintain works of Supererogation, etc.] It was both my Charity, and Modesty thus to speak of some; for he knows, some of ours who were as zealous as himself for Will-worship, are turned absolute Papists even in this point of merit, by commanded and uncommanded works. [Let him that yet standeth, take heed lest he fall.] And the rather, because he stands upon slippery ground, which may easily cast him into the same precipice. I did not directly charge the Doctor, with the opinion or heresy of works of Supererogation; but sure he is very near it: and seeing that, I spoke in Charity, (but he takes it by the wrong handle) to prevent his falling into the pit. I shall only show him how near he is to it, if he will have the patience to hear me. As in other points he is gone far towards Rome, (as very learned men think.) so in this particular now before us. They agree in these things. 1. In the Principle of Supererogation, which is, [That a man may do uncommanded works, or, that there are uncommanded virtues, of eminent perfection, above commanded virtues:] So they, so he asserts. 2. They agree also, in the success of such uncommanded perfections; that they are more commendable, more acceptable to, and more rewardable by God: this he and they do confidently affirm alike. 3. In the ground of them, in regard of satisfaction to God by them, that is merit: for so Papists do expressly make them meritorious, of more glory for themselves, and for pardon and glory for others that need them. But this the Doctor disclaims and abhors, p. 224. n. 3. [It is an infinite mercy, that they are rewardable, the most excellent of them.] True, in words he denies all meriting of glory, by his most eminent perfections; but see the consequences of his doctrine: for thus I would argue, [If uncommanded works be more rewardable, it must be either by way of merit, or of grace; I know no third way, Rom. 4.4. Of grace or of debt: But his uncommanded works are not more rewardable by way of grace; for than they have some promise for that greater reward in Scripture; but they are all made to obediences, upon commands.] What remains then, but by way of debt, or merit, and then indeed, he may not only confidently expect a greater reward, but peremptorily challenge it, 
* The Doctrine of Supererogation is founded in their opinion, that a man may, by uncommanded performances, make satisfaction for his own, and other men sins, which I no way believe or acknowledge, p. 224. n. 1.  by way of justice as Papists do. It may be said, wherein then does the Doctor differ from them? In point of satisfaction only, either for their own or others sins. But Papists make their works of Supererogation, or uncommanded virtues, to merit greater glory for themselves, if not for others also. And herein, in the first at least, they both agree. Let us review a little the 53. Sect. of Will-worship, and we shall see what he asserts to free his doctrine from Supererogation. [1. It supposeth no perfect obedience;] Nor do Papist do so, but does not the Doctor so? both in his particular acts of some virtues, which he makes to be sinless, and also in universal obedience to the Law, to be possible at least: for Christ's yoke is not made up of impossible precepts. Nor do Papists hold that all men can or do keep the Law, but only some eminent Saints, and consequently they do, or should hold, (if they speak reason) that none but such can Supererogate. But if such as have sinned, and do sin may Supererogate, the Doctor's denial of perfect obedience, does not make it impossible for himself also to Supererogate, which is, (as he says) to lay out more than is commanded, that is, to do something not commanded. But again, if a man may Supererogate (being a sinner) by doing something not commanded; how easy a consequence is this, to carnal reason; [I can do more than is commanded; ergo, I may merit more glory for myself, if not satisfy for others,] which brings me to the next. 2. [If supposing every man to have sinned, it pretendeth not to the least degree of satisfaction to God for any the least sin, of our own. 3. Much less for others sins:] So they differ only in point of satisfaction for sins, which notwithstanding, hinders not, but there may be Supererogation, in point of doing more than is commanded, (whence Supererogation hath its denomination) and also, in purchasing (if I may not say 
* Virgo-majoris est meriti: said Hierom. cited above. p. 95.  meriting, which is true enough, if such works have no promise of greater reward; meritting I say) glory, more glory for ourselves, if not for others; and so the Doctor falls into their doctrine of merit of glory, though he escape the gulf of satisfaction for sins, and which is worse, and most blasphemous against the precious and infinite merits of Christ, is hard to determine. By all which it may appear, my Charity was useful enough, to fetch out a brother fallen, or stay him falling into the pit: And yet see how contemptibly the Doctor throws it away. 
p. 229. n. 16  [I 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 Diatribists exercitation, and arguments therein contained, to fly to any other Sect of Religion, to furnish myself with answers for him.] Truly I am sorry my charity and my pains should be lost upon him; I find my pains is not lost to others; and for my charity, let him now consider what need he had of it: if not, it shall, I doubt not, return into mine own bosom. And were I of his opinion, I should find a temptation upon me, to those ill consequences of his doctrine, and must either fly some whither for answers to them, or fly to Rome, to be of their opinions, in point of Supererogation. For what wise man might not be tempted to think, [When the Scripture calls to the most excellent way, and prudence (as he said) suggests, the readiest way to be most glorious in Heaven, is to do that which is best;] and the Doctor or Papists, shall teach this doctrine, 
See n. 17.  [That to do things not commanded, is more commendable, acceptable, rewardable with God, then to do things commanded by God.] Who will not feel himself tempted, to leave or somewhat neglect, the common road of obediences to commands, and run into this newfound easier way, that will lead more speedily to higher glory. This hath misled thousands of Papists (and they no Babies) as it did the Pharisees of old, and if I be not deceived, many of our own superstitious Formalists (for such there were, though the Doctor scorns the words) into many Will-worships, who (it's known too well to be hid) did neglect the commands of God enough, but were zealots in the Doctors uncommanded Worship, and Ceremonies; and ambitious, some of them, of his uncommanded eminent perfection, and virtues, etc. And for a close of this, I did not before, but now almost durst take upon me to Divine, that in his next answers, to what is now said, the Doctor must either fly to some other Sect of Religion, (that of the Romanist) for answers, or else must return to the way of truth, which he hath deserted, and I defend; which God grant.  
Hear what he says more, 
p. 230. n. 18  [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 that do them,] Rom. 14. But, first, this rule of the Apostle, must be understood of things merely indifferent, meats, etc. not of things unlawful and forbidden, as all uncommanded Worship is: In this case, they that do it not, ought in all wise to judge and condemn them that do it, and not to suffer sin upon their brother, Levit. 19.17. 2. It's well known, that they which did too freely do those things, which others accounted (and proved) unlawful, did not only despise, but judged, condemned, and punished those which did them not. And so were the first and worst transgressors of their own rule; bespeaking the favour, not to be despised by others, that themselves might have the liberty to judge others, etc. Had they left them as indifferent and free, to do or not to do them, there would have been, as no judging of them that do them not; so no despising (but rather pitying) of them which do them.  
And now I have done with this Diatribe, but that charity, (which gins at home, though it after go abroad) calls upon me to rectify two misprisions, and injuries put upon me. [1. That I censured our Bishops (by the Character of overlooking,) as guilty of insolence and contempt, towards others, which like the Karaeans kept close to the rule of the word, for their Worship.] I can sincerely profess, that to my best remembrance, the Bishops in that notion, were not in my thoughts; some of which I ever reverenced as learned and pious men. But if any of them were superstitious Formalists, (as some were known to be) in that notion I might intent them: whose insolence and contempt, of their differing brethren, was too often felt, in making their own constitutions and ceremonies, snares to tender, honest consciences, etc. Yet if the Doctor will needs know whom I meant, I shall freely tell him; they were those, who, ambitious perhaps of that Episcopal dignity, did comply to every new introduced superstitious ceremony, with scorn enough overlooking them, who could not do so; some of them being lose and profane in moral conversation: That's the first. There is another great mistake, and very false; yet like a thread runs through all his former discourse; [That I presume all use of uncommanded Ceremonies to be Superstition first, and then Formality.] Which I so professedly disclaimed often, and have his confession, sometimes to the contrary, that I understood the question only of uncommanded Worship, not of Circumstances, not of Ceremonies unless they be made parts of Worship, or offend against some other Scripture Rules. Which whether his Christmas Festival (as it was by most observed) be guilty of, comes next to be considered.    

Exercitation. 3. Of Christmas, and other Festivals.  
HAving so largely vindicated the two former Diatribees in Thesi, I shall not need to be long, in Hypothesi. The judicious Reader, ere this, understands, that my main design in undertaking this work, was primarily to manifest the Superstition and Will-worship, in the ordinary observation of the chief Festivals, (and the rest) and secondarily to justify the abolition of them, against which, the Doctor hath so much declamed. For which end, I took in, (as I said at first) his other two Tracts, of Superstition and Will worship; to make a clear discovery (of that, which I saw the Doctor had clouded) what those two Crimes were, which (beside the Riot) were charged upon his Festival; that so the Application of them to the Festival in particular, might be the more easy and obvious to every intelligent Reader. For if Superstition and Will-worship be, as I have proved them to be from the Testimonies of Orthodox Divines, and of the Doctor himself, and they criminous. And then the Observers of the Festivals be proved guilty of those two crimes, and the Doctor as deep as any, (which only remain to be made good) I shall venture to make all indifferent, but judicious Readers, yea, and the Doctor himself in his sedate and impartial judgement, both witnesses and judges of my conclusion. If the Doctor himself shall lend me both my premises, even sometimes, totidem verbis, I hope he will not be so uncivil or unnatural, as not to own the conclusion, as a child of his own begetting; though it hath been several times brought home, and laid at his door, but he hath gone in and out, and took no notice of it. I shall once more lay it before him: But first, some other business takes us up, to be briefly dispatched, rather by way of strictures, than a set and continued discourse.  
That the custom of a Church in things indifferent, is somewhat considerable, I denied not. 
p. 231. n. 3.  But when humane customs are degenerated into superstition, and made Will-worship, that custom though never so ancient is not to be pleaded. He may see, that my scope was only this, to beat down degenerated customs, pretended only to be ancient and Apostolical; and withal, to retort the argument intended by him, more suitably to the text alluded to; [The Apostles and prime Church, had no such custom (as his Festival) therefore, they are contentious who plead for the continuancy of a custom so degenerated.] Whence the Doctor's testimonies, are indeed, ex abundanti, needless and superfluous, (except to show his reading) [That Christians should comply with the customs of the places whither they come;] That is, 
n. 4. etc.  while they are in things indifferent, and neither burdenous by their number, nor vitiated by the former abuses: But he knows, that Augustine in his time which was early to us, complained of the yoke of Ceremonies introduced, and wished them abolished: and so much for that Section.  
How those Heathen usages, 
p. 233. n. 3.  that stuck so long to the Festival, came in, or when, it is not 
* See n. 8.  worth the while to debate; it would be a better service, for the Advocates of the Festival, to study how to get them out, which (I fear) they have not much troubled themselves withal. Sure we are, many customs came in, in compliance as with the Jews on one side, so with Heathens on the other. I know he remembers well enough, who said; Ita bellè Ethnicos in hac re, 
Polydor. Virg. de Invent. Rer. l. 6. c. 8. p. 234. n. 7.  ut in nimis multis aliis, aemulamur. Though neither I nor he, can exactly tell, when that compliance first began. Suppose, that which the Doctor says be true; [At the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian, and so some others from the heathen also, 'tis possible and imaginable.] But it's as true (which he adds) they were not taught them by Christianity. Christian Religion taught them no such things, nor intended their continuance: but yet they were continued a long time. Hence his argument for Infant Baptism (of that I think he means it also) from the custom of the Jews to Baptise, is not constringent to a gain-sayer, I believe he finds it so in his conflict with Master Tombs: for how easy were it to answer, (as I remember he does) it was the custom of the Jews to Circumcise after Christianty began, to keep the old Sabbath, & what's that to Christians? And if my judgement were of any worth with the Doctor, I should make bold to tell him my conjecture in this case. It's very probable, that at the first beginning of Christianity, such things, or customs, as the Sabbath, the Paschal, and Pentecost Festivals, might adhere to the Christian, though not taught it by Christianly, that they should be continued as Christian holidays; and so some Heathenish customs in like manner from the first plantation of the Faith: But then I would infer, 1. That the Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost, called after, Easter and Whitsuntide, were no Apostolical constitutions, but rather charitable condescensions of the Apostles, and after Planters, to win the Jews to the Christian Religion. But not as taught them by Christianity; nor to continue any more, than the old Sabbath or Circumcision, etc. Which by degrees vanished. Else I would ask, why was not the old Sabbath perpetuated in the Church Christian, aswel as Easter and Whitsuntide; there being more to be said for it, in the Apostolical practice and other ways, then is or can be produced for those Fostivals, as I have elsewhere said. 2. I would also infer, that Festivals were continued or exchanged, for some Heathenish ones, (as Christmas for the Saturnalia) to win them the better to the faith; not to be continued longer, than the Faith was well fettled: But such is the mischief of humane policies in Religion, that ill usages once brought in, can seldom or hardly be gotten out again. 3. The Doctor's argument is as little constringent as mine, that those [usages must needs be brought in, at the first conversion of a nation,] which might come in by degrees.  
The time and Author of our conversion, 
p. 235. n. 1.  is as uncertain as the former, and confessed by the Doctor, [to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the business of Festivals.] And therefore I shall no longer draw the Saw of controversy therein, but leave the Doctor to his own conjectures, (for they are no better) and proceed to something of more concernment. And that is, about the institution, and observation of Easter, (by which standard all other Festivals are to be rated as the Doctor says p. 243. n. 10.) which, if we may believe him, was instituted, or at least observed by the Apostles themselves. The trial whereof is referred, 
p. 241. n. 2.  not to Scripture, (which an Apostolical institution, which is acknowledged elsewhere to be Divine, might justly expect) but to Tradition, out of most uncertain Histories, unfit to build our faith upon. Eusebius, who lived in the fourth Centurie, a great distance from the Apostles age, is the first that writes about it, and all he says, is from certain Epistles, received by Tradition; 
n. 3.  he says, [All the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day, as from a more ancient Tradition, and a custom long before delivered to them, which (says the Doctor) considering the time, wherein this question was agitated, at the end of the second Century, can amount to little less than Apostolical.] But more than this, in the Epistle of Pollycrates to Victor, he says, [Many Biships of Asia observed the fourteenth day, according to the Gospel, keeping exactly the Canon of faith, no way wavering from it.] A good while after, comes Nicephorus (no very credible Author) and says, 
n. 10.  [Following the Apostolical tradition upward, or from the beginning, and that expressly from Saint Peter the Apostle, which (says the Doctor most confidently) still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable, that this feast of Easter, which sure is a Christian Festival, was observed and celebrated by the Apostles, etc.] This was spoken for the practice of the Western Church, wh● kept on the Lord's day; but the Eastern observation might fall on any other day of the week, as the Jewish Pasch did. But Socrates, in his time observed, 
n. 16.  [That several nations had their several customs of observing Easter.] That is, as his words are; [As in many other things, so also the Feast of Easter by custom in every nation, had a peculiar (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) private observation; because none of the Apostles, gave to any a Law about it.] Now these things hang not well together. I shall propound some considerations, to cool the Doctor's confidence, to weaken, if not to break, this his standard of all other Festivals, and to make it more than probable, that it is not Apostolical.  
1. The best and only ground he finds to pitch his Standard on, is but Tradition, unwritten Tradition, not the least title of Scripture consequence, but that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which by and by. The plea is the very same with Papists for their Festivals, and other Ceremonies. Socrates who relates the debate between the Eastern and Western Churches and their plea on both sides, from several Apostles adds, [But not a man of either side could produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a written demonstration of these things.] They all plead unwritten uncertain Tradition: Whereas a standard for all Festivals should have at least one foot standing upon a written word. It is too much (though too ordinary) for the Doctor to comply with Rome, in the countenancing of unwritten Traditions.  
2. Traditions Apostolical do sometimes imply, their written Institutions and instructions; [Hold the Traditions 
* Traditiones vocat, doctrinae, & institutu Religionis Christianae, etc. Estius in locum.  which ye have been taught, by word or our Epistle,] 2 Thes. 2.15. (which no doubt were both the same:) But the Doctor though in the Authorities pleaded, he is content they shall use the words Apostolical Tradition, often, yet himself waves it, and never calls his Festivals an Apostolical Tradition; but an Apostolical observation, 
* The words of Nicephorus in the margin, p. 242. n. 5. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostolical Authority: which is more than custom, practice, etc. not Englished by the Doctor.  custom, practice, n. 10.17, 18, 19 The reason is, because an Apostolical Tradition to the Churches to keep, might well infer an Institution, and so Divine Authority, which he knew, he could never prove, and therefore pleads, [Only the Practice Apostolical, and not their commanding it by Law.] n. 17. But say I, Apostolical Practice only makes it more uncertain and more unable to bear his Standard, because they practised many things, not as Christians, or to be conveyed to Christian Churches, but merely too comply with the Jews their countrymen, to win them the better, as was said above.  
3. 
p. 242. n. 5, 6.  Yet what is that less, than an Apostolical, Divine Institution which Polycrates and his fellows, plead for their custom: [All which (saith he) observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel, not at all transgressing, but following the Canon of Faith.] But than it might be feared, and inferred, that Peter and Paul transgressed both against the Gospel, and Canon of Faith, in their contrary custom. Let him see to that. Is it not very probable that Paul who was often and long in Asia, would have withstood Philip and John to their faces (as he did Peter the prime Apostle in a like case, Gal. 2.) for judaizing, and complying with the Jews, in the Festival, who had set up another Day in the Western Church, or rather had cried down the observation of such days in other Churches, Rom. 14. Gal. 4.  
4. If it were (I say not of Apostolical, Divine institution) of Apostolical observation and practice, as a Christian Festival, would they have differed so in their Tradition of it to the Churches, being guided all by the same Spirit? would Philip and John observe and leave to the Eastern Churches, the Jewish day, and Peter and Paul the Lord's day, all of them jointly having appointed in all Churches a weekly day, for the commemoration of the Resurrection? which is also made the foundation of Easter day. It's nothing probable.  
5. If the Eastern observation of Easter was according to the Gospel and Canon of Faith, how came it to pass; that that custom was abolished, (as it was) and the Western, was established? was not this to set the Churches together by the ears, both of them pleading Apostolical Tradition?  
6. The Romish plea, for their custom, from Peter and Paul, may reasonably be judged to be forged (as their primacy of the Pope, is,) For, 1. its most probable that Peter was never at Rome, but uncertain and false Tradition so would have it, as our best Divines do make it appear. 2. It's most improbable, that Paul, who was so vehement against all observation of Feasts, (except the Lord's day) should institute, or practise the same Festival, and that at Rome, and so build again what he had destroyed. Rom. 14.6. Gal. 4.  
7. It's no way credible that the Apostles all or any of them, would first cry down the Festivals as Jewish, and presently set it up as Christian; or 2. set up an annual day, for the commemoration of the Resurrection, the Lords day being before set up for the same end. 3. Or lay such a ground of difference to the succeeding Churches, by different timeing of it. Credat Judaeus apella, Non ego.  
8. How came that contest between Victor and the Afiaticks, about the day, when the same difference was between him, and the French, and Britain Churches: No less than a threefold different observation of Easter, in the Western Churches, as was noted.  
9 Why does not the Dr. endeavour, to recover the day, which Philip our Apostle, and first planter (by some sent hither by him) endowed us with, and that according to the Gospel and Canon of Faith, from John the longest liver of the Apostles; but submits to the Western custom, and so subjects us to Rome, which he so fears, and warned me to be ware of? I leave these to his resolution, and come to consider, what he says to my arguments against it.  
1. There is no mention of the institution or observation of it, in Scripture; nor ground to found it on. 
p. 244. n. 12 I said, there was no ground in Scripture to found it on: To which he says novothing.  To this he hath three answers. [1. There is small virtue in this, from Scripture negative.] As little virtue as there is in this negative argument, for me; it seems to be great for himself, against me: For here n. 17. he pleads thus against the institution of the Lordsday; [Sure the New Testament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it:] And again, against the use of the fourth Commandment, [Where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment.] p. 263. n. 8. And once more, p. 281. n. 19 [Christ never reprehended the observation of the Feast of Dedication,] (that we read of) therefore he approved it. But, in the case in hand, & ad hominem, I have argued strongly from Scripture negative; [Will worship is not commanded in Scripture, therefore it is unlawful. But this Festival with that of the Nativity, is made a Will-worship by Papists and the Doctor;] ergo, they are unlawful, and as such, have no ground in Scripture. 2. Answer [The Apostles word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let us keep the Feast is some (be it acknowledged a less weighty) ground in Scripture for the observation.] This word of the Apostle in the judgement of all Interpreters, hath nothing to do with his Festival: The text and context are also against his gloss; which makes it so light, that it is not so much as some weight for the observation of it. And I having said so much against this gloss, in my 31 Section of Fest. I wonder he should so confidently produce it here, and say nothing to purpose to it, in its own place. All I shall say now, is this, that if this be the sense of it, (which the Doctor begs) it hath not only some, but an exceeding weighty ground for the observation of his Festival, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Law-giving, an institution Divine, which he will deny to the Lordsday, and proves more than he intended, not only the observation and practice, but also institution Apostolical: But more of this below. 3. Answ. [The mention of the Lordsday; Rev. 1. is some farther ground; if it be the annual, then there is a clear evidence for the observation of it, in the Apostles days.] The Doctor is happy, if all his suppositions might be granted him; he knows, the place is generally understood of the Weekly-day, and what is then become of his clear evidence? But hear again, [If it should be the weekly day; yet in any reason, the annual day of the resurrection, was the foundation of this weekly day.] It is observable, that in all this discourse of Festivals, the Doctor's great design is, to vilify, if not to nullify the authority of the Lords day, so to exalt above, or equal with it his Festivals; which (if there were no other crime) is sufficient to stir the indignation, of any truly Religious man: Here he does it, and again presently, n. 17. and afterwards often, as I shall note as I pass on. But this he here asserts, is most incongruous. Rather the weekly-day, was the foundation of the annual day: For, first, it's said, Christ risen on the first day of the week, often; and thereupon. It was designed to be the Christian Sabbath, or day of Assemblies: but never is it said, he risen upon such a day of the month, or year. 2. If the Lords weekly day, was not first instituted, how came the contest between the Churches, whether Easter day should be observed on the Lordsday, or on the Jewish day, which might and did fall, on any other day of the week. Tradition says, that Peter and Paul observed the Festival on the Lord's day at Rome, does not this suppose the Lordsday to be instituted before the Festival of Easter? Saint John and Philip, it's said, kept it on the Jewish day; how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day. And let the Doctor remember, that his Mother the Church of England, as she includes Easter day, among the Sundays, making it no otherwise an Holiday; so she found'st the Lordsday, not upon the annual day, but upon the fourth Commandment. When she commands this prayer to be said after it, [Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law.] But the Doctor will either prove, or illustrate what he said; [As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church, had their foundation, in the annual great fast on the day of Christ's death, in the Paschal week.] As if the fast on Good-friday, were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lordsday; or humane constitutions, were to be a foundation for a Divine institution. [That the Apostles did expressly repeal those Feasts,] 
n. 14. p. 244  hath not (he says) the least degree of truth in it, as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10.] Let the Reader turn to the place, p. 3. n. 2. and see what he saith to that text; all is but this, [It is peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Feasts, but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of Christ's birth, then to the weekly of the Resurrection.] Even from the beginning to the end of this account, his design is to slur the lustre of the Lordsday, levelling it to his Festivals. But, first, the Apostle speaks indefinitely against observation of days, as religious, 
Paulus praecepit. says, Hierom.  all beside the Lord's day, which he had there also established, as the day of collection, (and first of Assemblies) for that collection supposes the day before designed (instead of the old Sabbath) as well at Galatia, as among the Corinthians; 1 Cor. 16.1. [Now concerning the collection for the Saints, as I have given order, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ordered, ordained) to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye, upon the first day, etc.] Here's an Apostolical institution for collections on the Lord's day, and presupposes the day before appointed, in both those Churches. 2. It is no ways probable, that the Apostle would cry down Jewish Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost, and set up the very same again, at the same time, as Christian Feasts, as I said above. If they were abolished as parts of Ceremonial-worship, how scandalous might it have been, to change only the name, (nay the name was not changed in other Churches) and set up other Feasts in their stead, as parts of Christian Worship: for so they would be esteemed, if the Apostle had set them up, or brought them in.  
The sestimony of Socrates the Historian, he eludes by a distinction; he means it thus, 
n. 15.  [They made no Laws for the observing of Festivals, but refers the original of them to custom;] but the Doctor speaks only of Apostolical practice, so he says: But, first, Socrates says nothing of the Apostolical practice; but refers it wholly to the custom of several places and people. [It seems to me (says he) as many other things were introduced, by a custom in divers places, so, the Feast of Easter, by custom, in several people, had a peculiar different observation.] Why? because none of the Apostles had made any Law concerning it.] But sure if the Apostles did change it from a Jewish, to a Christian Festival, and did themselves observe it, as exemplary to the Churches, they did thereby at first give as good as a Law, and make an institution, for them to observe. And I am persuaded that upon this ground, of Apostolical tradition, and observation, came in all the Superstition, in after ages, in making them Holy times, and parts of Divine Worship, etc. and they established them as a Law, as Socrates said, believing them to be Apostolical. 2. The truth seems to me to lie here: The Apostles did often frequent the Assemblies of the Jews, in the Temple, upon their solemnest Festivals, as a greater opportunity of fishing in a wide Sea, a multitude of people; as at Pentecost, Acts 2. and again, Acts 20 16 [Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost,] for the same reason; which custom of the Festivals continuing, till the destruction of Jerusalem, the Apostles did condescend to be at them, while they lived amongst them: Whereupon the following Church seeing this example of their practice, took it as a Rule, to observe the Feasts, especially the Jewish Christians in Asia, being tenacious of their old customs, and so kep● the very same day, the Jews did; which other Churches, after the Jews were grown obstinate, finding such a custom of the Feast, in hatred of the Jews, changed into the Lord's day: as Augustine observes. Epist. 119 & Can. Nicen. de Fest. Pasch. by Constantine's persuasion. But see the tenaciousness of men for Traditions of their Fathers. The Doctor cares not, (what he can) to weaken or question the Authority of the Lords day, to strengthen and establish his Easter Feast. 
p. 245. n. 17  [It will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any other evidence for the weekly Christian Sabbath or Lords day, (than the custom and practice Apostolical:) the New Testament hath no where any giving of Law, conerning it.] But sure it will be easy for the Diatribist to manifest a palpable difference between the Lord's day and his Easter, out of scripture the best Record, (beside what is said out of prime Antiquity.) For 1. We find the Name there, as a day of Christian Assemblies, but not a word of Easter. 2. We find the Apostles practice and observation of it, but never of Easter. 3. We find grounds in Scripture for the institution or designation of the day, but nothing for Easter, but rather the contrary prohibition. The grounds of the weekly Christian Sabbath, it's well he will allow the Lordsday so honourable a Title, he cannot say so much for his Easter Feast; and some of his way, would have scornfully called it, [Your Saint Sabbath.] The grounds I say, are these. 1. For a solemn day of rest, which is a Sabbath, we have the fourth Commandment moral in the judgement of its greatest enemies. 2. We have it granted, that the day must not be less, than one in seven; yea, one day in seven, is granted moral in the fourth Commandment, by the Doctor 
* p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred, that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven, for our great Christian purposes, the first day of the week, etc.  himself. 3. Christ in Matt. 5. came to establish (and not destroy) this Law, amongst the rest. 4. We have Christian exercises performed on the day, beside prayer, and preaching, and Lords Supper, collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day, which presupposes the day 
* That which was done by the Apostles, if it were not a rule for ever, yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ, and interpretable by this practice to be so, in his 4. Quaer. s. 94.  before designed by Christ, or his Apostles: All this together amounts to a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or institution. And lastly, the uniform observation of this day, in all ages, in all Churches, must needs presuppose it to be a Divine Ordination. Not one of all these can he truly prove appliable to his Easter Feast. Away then, with such unworthy comparisons: But we shall meet it again, ere long.  
And yet Isaid, 
p. 245. n. 19  and say again, [The observation of Easter hath better Antiquity than this of Christmas, though not Apostolical.] He answers, [The Apostolical practice being so evident, there can be no doubt, & then the Analogy holding, & the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian Festival to another, will certainly justify the observation, etc.] The question is not now of the observation of either, but the Antiquity; so that this was a mere evasion. There are histories and traditions, and ancients that speak of Easter, in the second Centurie; but not one word of Christmas; and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it; which to me, is a good evidence there is none. And as for Analogy, from one Festival to another; it holds as well thus: If there can be produced neither Apostolical institution, nor observation of Easter, as a Christian Festival, (as is probably evinced above) then much less is there any ground for the institution or observation of Christmas as an Holiday: But this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the main business.  
When I granted, the Antiquity of some Festivals (in the third or fourth Century) might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman Antichristain See, adhering to them; The Doctor is overjoyed, 
n. 1. p. 247.  [and congratulates the unexpected success of his paper.] But without any cause, for it wrought nothing with me, being of that opinion before, that Rome was not at that time Antichristian: But to discover my meaning, and to cool his boasting, I believe the first Institutors of Festivals had a good Intention, to commemorate the mercies of God, bestowed on us in Christ, making them only circumstances of Worship, though some Superstitions, did soon after creep into the observation of them: But after ages declining more and more, till Antichrist got into the throne, those Festivals (I meant) comparatively had at first nothing of that corruption, which after adhered to, and overwhelmed them, both in their Institution, and also in their observation. Neither did I mean, that the Festivals as they were lately observed by some in England, had nothing of the Roman See, (as now it is corrupted) having charged the observation of them, by the Dr. and some others, with little less, if not the same Superstition and Will-worship, (besides the Riot) with them at Rome. And however the Doctor say, 
p. 248. n. 3.  [That nothing could be more unjust and improbable at once, than what is suggested of corruptions, in the most ancient primitive Church.] Yet himself is more unjust in straining and misconstruing my words: For I spoke not of the primitive Apostolical Church, but of some ages after, wherein I supposed those Festivals were invented, (suppose in the third or fourth Century,) and it were too easy to prove, that corruptions crept into the Churches, both in Doctrine and Worship, in those ages, though more in after ages: And though its true, the Governors of the Church did oppose all fundamental errors, 
n. 4.  against the 
* Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbu lentarum personarum scandala, devitanda improbare non audeo. August. Epist. 1 9 p. 249. n. 7.  Natures and Person of Christ, etc. as the Apostles had done, yet corruptions in Worship might and did creep in, [Good men being loath to oppose them, thinking them errors that would increase piety,] as the Dr. Faulk observed. And though the Church did oppose and censure corruptions, in Doctrine and Worship, as she was able; yet had she in all times, some undutiful Sons, that corrupted both; and of their Errors I meant, the Church of Rome and the Romish Religion, as distinguished from the Reformed, is a bundle. And what great advantage thereby I have given to Papists, by this Affirmation, I see not: For this is not at all [an agnition that the most accused Romish practices now adays, are the same, which were delivered to them from the primitive Church.] They were not delivered to them, by the 
† The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Church. The Fathers (in them) declined from the simplicity of the Gospel, Doctor Pulk Rejoined. to Mart. are 1. see also, a. 3.  Church of any age, much less by the Primitive; but they like flies fell upon and followed the corruptions of former times, and like Spiders sucked poison out of sweet flowers. If the Doctor enter his descent to this. I am sure many as true Sons of the Church of England, as himself, have said as much, and will subscribe their Assent unto it. Sure I am, he hath given them much more advantage, against the true Church of England, in justifying their Superstition and Will-worship, in their Festivals, by his Pen and Practice; as will appear, ere we part.  
The next debate, 
p. 249. n. 1.  in order, should be about the power of a Church, universal or partiular, to constitute ceremonies for itself, as it shall judge most useful, etc. and in special, to constitute holidays and Festivals The Doctor let fall those words, [That this Anglicaene Church was invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for itself: which may not without temerity, be changed or abolished by any.] To this I put in a demur, and desired to see it proved, as tending much to the decision of the present controversy. To which end, after some explication to state the question right, I gave in some arguments, for the Negative. All which the Doctor will not touch with one of his fingers, but wisely leaps over four leaves of mine together: but goes on to beg the question, in three particulars; [1. 
n. 2.  That this Church of ours was first planted by some either Apostle, or Apostolical man, (which cannot easily be proved.) 2. 
n. 3.  That the Feast of Christmas was set up (that's an Institution, but corrected) or celebrated by those that first planted the Faith here, i. e. some Apostle or Apostolical person (which is more improbable.) 3. That what was by so good authority, introduced, having no equal reason to supersede it, may not without temerity, now be abolished by any, etc.] And this is the main question, which being founded upon the two other, unproved suppositions, falls together with them. Yet the Doctor will prove this last by induction: [Not by any other persons, Pope, 
p. 250. n. 4.  or Consiscory, because none hath power over a Church founded by the Apostles, and not subjected to any.] But this supposes it founded by the Apostles, and that that only makes a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, her own supreme head; whereas, if she were planted, neither by an Apostle nor Apostolical man, but by an ordinary Minister, she was free from subjection to any other head: [Not (says he) by the Church itself.] What? may not the Church itself alter her own Institutions? are her Canons unreversible? No, [because it cannot be now supposed to have any such persons in it, as may be fit to compare with the first founders of it.] But then, the Feast of Easter on the Jewish day, might not by the after Church, be abolished (as it was) because no such persons as John and Philip could be supposed there. And besides, it would make all the Apostles observations, unchangeable, and Divine: yet there's one help left; [Not without some greater reason for the changing and abolishing, than they may appear to have had for the using of it.] This will come again in hypothesi to be considered; I shall only ask now, what better reason had Constantine to change the Jewish day, to the Lords day, when the Asian Churches had the Gospel and Canon of Faith, to found their custom on?  
But see the Application of his discourse. 1. I granted the English to be subject to no foreign power: 
n. 5.  he demands, [Whether it be subordinate to it's own Sons, or to any but the legal Fathers of it?] and then goes on with his scornful language sufficiently: To which I shall give no other answer but this, to demand whether it be subordinate to its own Fathers, (the Bishops, for them he means) and the reason why I ask it, is, because he said even now, [That which was by so good Authority introduced, (as his Christmas he says, was by some Apostle, etc.) may not without temerity be abolished by any; not by any person, not by the Church itself,] for reasons there given; unless he will say, his Bishops are persons fit to compare with the first Founders: otherwise neither Sons nor Fathers, might change or abolish it. But I questioned the unquestionable power of the Church, to institute Ceremonies, and to make them unchangeable. 
n. 6.  The Doctor complains [of change made in his inference; he never affirmed of those Ceremonies once instituted, that they might not upon good reasons be changed and abolished, 
His words are, may not be changed and abolished by any: Of Fest. s. 9 and he n. 4 not by any person, not by the Church itself.  by the same power which instituted them.] But if it be impossible to find the same or equal power, in the Church, with them that instituted them, [it cannot be supposed to have any such persons in it, fit to compare with the first Founders,] are his words; then he does affirm, they may not be abolished by any person or Church: Yes, upon better reasons, they may, than they had for using them. This were very hard to find in any after Church, that they should be wiser than the Apostles, to find greater reasons for the abolishing, than they had for using them. He should have said, instituting them, not using them; for we are speaking of a power to institute and abolish: And yet here he forgot himself and talks of reasons, [Whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted.] Which word he hath warily waved all this while, and pleaded only Apostolical Practice and not Institution; but let it go: He therefore hastened [to examine the present reasons of abolition of this Festival, whether they were as important, as those whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted, viz. that of the pious and thankful Commemoration of the Birth of Christ. 2. Whether the reasons for abolition, were not feigned, those of Will-worship and Superstition, etc.] I shall answer first to the second question. The Doctor may vainly hope, that he hath evidenced them to be feigned; but will find them stick too really upon his Festivals, in his own opinion and practice; which if it be made good, I shall venture to say to the first, that the reasons of abolition were as, and more important, then of the Institution: because Superstition and Will-worship are most abominable to God; and the birth of Christ may be piously and thankfully commemorated upon any other day, as well as this.  
And now, 
n. 9  was it not more policy, (to say no worse) then piety in him, to wave all my discourse concerning the power of a Church to institute Ceremonies? and [to take leave to pass it over untouched.] Which by the Laws of disputation, would not be granted him? For does it not concern his Festival nearly, to know, whether the Authority instituting it was sufficient? if not, its void ipso facto: If so, it behoved him to manifest it; having asserted, that this or any Church of the like foundation, [is invested with unquestionable power, to institute Ceremonies for its self, which consequently may not, without great temerity, be changed and abolished by any.] However, this being excepted to, and that (as I think) upon very good reasons, it concerned him, to have given me and the Reader satisfaction herein. But let us hear how he colour's his tergiversation. [The two branches of his proposition were no way concerned in any part of my state of the question; 1. That a national Church planted by the Apostles or their successors, may lawfully use a Festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ, etc. 2. That such an usage, when it hath gained a reception, ought not to be declaimed against as Antichristian, or laid aside by persons under authority, etc.] For this latter, there is scarce one word of it in his proposition, and for the former, it must necessarily be founded upon this supposition, [That such a Church hath unquestionable power to institute such a Ceremony, such a Festival:] Which if it be not proved (as it is merely begged) let the using, or usage, be never so ancient, (having concurrence of other Churches) yet it wants Authority for the continuance of it. For the Doctor must know, that its one thing, [To use a day for the Commemorating of the birth of Christ, and on it to pray, to praise God, etc. exhorting all good Christians to partake thereof, and to lay aside, their ordinary labours, etc.] and another thing, to institute a day as a Religious Festival, making it as sacred as the Lords day Sabbath, a part of Worship, and a sin to work upon that day;] as Papists, and the Doctor do. And consequently, if such Superstition and Will-worship be gotten into the observation of such a day, it may be declaimed against, in those respects, as Antichristian, and laid aside, by those that have power in their hands: which whether they had sufficiently, who laid his Festival aside, I leave to the Doctor to debate it with them, as not concerning me, who do believe, that I have sufficient Authority from the word of God, (I say not, to abolish an usage or custom) not to observe any such day, as is guilty of Superstition and Will-worship. But to satisfy his credulous Reader, who takes all his words as an Oracle, he slurs my four leaves discourse, thus, 
n. 10.  [I shall omit now to take notice of the infirmities, which this discourse of his, is as full of, as from any writing of no greater length, may well be expected.] If it were so, (though others judge it not so) it was the easier for him to have answered; his charity uses not to hid or spare my infirmities.  
In his 8. and 9 Sections, 
p. 252. n. 1. etc.  there is little of moment, to our main business; some jerks and squibs there are, not worth taking notice of, and therefore I shall (as he did, with much more material things of mine) take leave to pass them by untouched, and proceed to the next.  
That I proved what I said, 
p. 255. n. 3.  [That the first and purest ages of the Church did not observe his Christmas,] is the scope of my 6, and 7. Sections of Fest. 1. By disproving the Antiquity of Easter to be Apostolical, by three arguments, which are again applied, Sect. 27. to his Christmas, and the Doctor ought to have taken notice of them. 2. By the utter filence of the most ancient Records of the usages of the Church, for the first 200 years, at least; which is most improbable they would not take notice of, if then in use and practise: Truly (to use his own words) my eyes, or my memory very much fail me, or he hath not in any degree, out of any the most Ancient Records, given any one instance of any one Father, that speak one word of his Christmas Festival; All he pleads, is but the Analogy of it with that of Easter, which hath been sufficienty spoken to, and will again here: which might plead something (though not much) for the observation of it, when it was once set up; but nothing at all, for the Institution, or Antiquity of it. 
n. 4.  And therefore he finely puts it off, thus, [The dimness or want of stories of those times, makes it not so evident of this of Christmas, yet the Analogy holding directly between them; the argument remains as firm, that the laying aside those Festivals, is a separation from the Apostolic, purest times.] But first, the Doctor speaks of the dimness of the first ages; which sure is a figure, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dimness, for cimmerian Egyptian darkness: The stories of those times, would have been as clear for Christmas, as for Easter, if such a solemnity and usage, had been in being in Ignatius, and the next to him; or in 
* Tertullian, a man of great learning, a diligent observer and recorder of the Customs and Practices of the most ancient Church: Dr. Ham. of Infant Bapt. p. 97. n. 5. Yet not one word of Christmas, in the end of the second, and beginning of the third Century.  Tertullias and Origenes time. 2. The Analogy holds not in these two Festivals: For, first, Easter had a solemn Feast of the Jews, to plead either its Institution, or observation; but there was no Feast of the Jews, at the time of his Christmas; but it seems rather to be taken up, in imitation of the Gentile Saturnalia, a good while after. 2. Easter day, the day of Christ's Resurrection, is particularly set down, (and by the asiatics observed) according to the Jewish account, or Lunary year, in all the four Evangelists. But the day of Christ's Nativity, (as it cannot be discovered out of Scripture, so) is observed according to the Romish, or Solary, year. 3. Easter day, in the Western Church observed on the Lord day, may seem to carry some Antiquity in the face of it: But the observing of Christmas according to the Romish year, doth fairly show, it was not observed in the Apostles time, nor by men, that came from Jerusalem. 4. The Church of England observed Easter day, as a Lords day; but Christmas as a peculiar Festival, and therefore, the Analogy is small between them. Whereupon, the argument is of no force, [That the laying aside this Festival of Christmas (of Easter enough is said afore) is a separation from the Apostolic and purest time:] When it can never be proved, that it was in use, in those times, or some good while after. The Analogy holds only upon Supposition: That if the Apostles did institute and observe Easter as a Christian Festival, (which is proved most improbable, or uncertain) they might proportionably, institute and observe his Christmas, which is more uncertain, if not certainly false.  
But what say we, 
p. 256. n. 7.  [To the Solemnities and Festivities of Ignatius and Polycarp, two Bishops that lived in the Apostles times, observed from the very times of their deaths, and that in compliance with other the like Festivals of the Church before them; which must needs come home, to observation of Festivals in the 
* When as, these Martyrs died not till after all the Apostles, many years and there is not the least mention of the Festivities of any of the Apostles, till many ages after.  Apostles days.] To this, I say, many things. 1. The Dr. pitifully and poorly begs, [that those Feasts were instituted in compliance with other the like Festivals of the Church before them.] Whereas, if those were Feasts, as after they were used, they had better Antiquity than not only his Christmas, but his Easter also, and had none before them; unless he will plead St. Stephen's day, (who was a Martyr before them,) long after, put to attend upon Christmas day. 2. If these Feasts of Ignatius (which he often mentions here and after) were observed so near the Apostles days, (as he asserts) does not the Doctor, 1. cast dirt in his Mother's face, for abolishing those Feasts, putting them out of the Calendar, and separating from the Apostolic and purest times? 2. Does he not also much gratify the Church of Rome (which he sometimes causelessly casts upon me) as more conformable to the purest times, in observation of those Festivals, than his Mother the Church of England? 3. Is not he himself, a Separatist and Schismatic, in his compliance with his Mother, in his separation from the Apostolic purest times? in casting off holidays, of above fourteen hundred years standing, from the very Apostles days? Let him see, what he will answer. And I shall only add; If the Church of England, in King Edward's days, in rasing out of the Calendar those Feasts, did not separate from the Apostolical, Universal Church; nor does it follow, that in laying aside his other Festivals, she hath made any separation from that Church, the rather, because he cannot prove his Christmas Apostolical, as he would believe he hath proved those Feasts of Ignatius and Polycarp, 
n. 7.  to be. Oh, [but there's no analogy betwixt the Church of England's departing from Rome, and the Diatribists departing from the Church of England:] Where it's observable, that he takes the Church of England, to be only, the Superiors, that is, the Bishops, the Fathers of the Church, as Romanists do; those of the inferior Clergy, are none of the Church, no nor the Parliament of England. But if I remember aright, his Superiors the Bishops were, laid aside, (even by the King himself, excluded the Lords house) before his Festivals, and so had no Superiority in things agitated in Parliament, and then we made no Separation from our lawful superiors, in this particular: And so his first difference is nothing. The second is this, 
n. 8.  [Those things wherein the Church of England departed from the Romish opinions, and practices, were none of them such as this of Festivals, common usages of the universal, ancient primitive purest Church, but innovations unduly brought in, and imposed upon all Christians. [Yes, just the same, usages of the ancient primitive Church, the Feasts of Ignatius and Polycarp, observed near the Apostles days, as he says, and where is then the difference? If then, this be any advantage to the Romish Church, 
n. 9  she may thank the Doctor for it, who pleads so much for some Festivals, to be in the Apostles days and purest times, that he hath made his Mother a Schismatic in rasing them out of the Calendar etc. as was said above. But I shall enter my protestation of descent to this proposition also.  
It is an easy thing for the Doctor's great learning, to slight all, that comes from others, 
p. 257. n. 1.  as worthy no reply: How solidly I have proved the observation of this Festival, by many among us, to be superstitious, is already evident, and will be more, ere long: though the Doctor will wink, and pass it all by, as if he saw it not. 2. That contrary extremes of Superstition, and profaneness, 
n. 2.  may meet in the same person, may indeed seem a wonder and very strange, but is too often exemplified, I have known (and I believe the Doctor too) some Sons of this Church, superstitious to admiration, who have been as profane, as almost the times yielded any: As if they had intended to make good that speech of Socrates, cited by me, Fest. pag. 171. [There are some, who think all whoredom (and drunkenness, etc.) to be a thing indifferent, that do contend for Festival days, as for life.] Nor is it such an irrational thing in these times, to call the same man Papist first, and then Socinian: For as much, as some that are Papists in some opinions and practices, are also Socinians in other points, as might be proved. That I derive Superstition from super statutum, is proved false, by his own confession above. The rest in numb. 3. hath been spoken to afore, and that of the Creed and Catechism is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and I pass it by.  
Who they are, that in these sad and erroneous times do stand up against all the Sects and Heresies, 
p. 259. n. 4.  is evident enough; though I had said nothing, and how little those of the Doctor's parties do appear to oppose them, is clear enough; partly because they are willing to put that burden upon those, whom they esteem their enemies, and partly because they preach the same Doctrines of Arminius and Papists which themselves do hold and publish: But if the Reader will see the Preface to the Doctor's Practical Catechism, in the first Impressions, 
This Diatribist; as this Publican. n. 5.  he will find, [a Pharisee could not have said more, in his solemnest magnificat,] then the Doctor hath suffered to be said of himself. It may be, he was sensible of it, and therefore hath wisely left it out in his last Impression: And how he slights and undervalues both the learning and persons of his Adversaries, hath been showed above, and may again ere long. But it seems the touch of Arminianism, hath enfired the Doctor's zeal; whereof he is as guilty as any I know, witness his Catechism, and his Fundamentals. I ask in a word; Durst the Doctor have broached such Doctrine in his Prelate's time, in K. James his days, or beginning of King Charles? We see how dangerous a thing Toleration is: Yet if we speak of pride, what hath an humble Publican to do, with an high flown Arminian, who dare answer the Apostles, quis te discrevit? with an, ego me decerno: And when you hear men plead so much for , and  offerings and uncommanded perfection above both Law and Gospel, and tell us confidently they may and do expect a greater reward for uncommanded virtues, then for commanded duties; are not such men almost as high as Papists and Jesuits, who dare say to God, [He should be unjust, if he do not give eternal life, 
n. 5.  to their good works?] But to vent his anger, the Doctor charges me with two palpable untruths; first, that I say absolutely, that Festivals are forbidden by the second and fourth Commandment, when I only say, [If they be made parts, of Worship, as holy as the Lords day, etc.] Then 2. that I think, [grace may not be received in vain:] When, upon his own confession I meant, that God does not give it, only to incline and leave men free to use it, or not to use it, see ad p. 199. n. 6. and p. 200. n. 9 And having done this, he charges himself with two commonly reputed errors. 1. To favour slavish fear; which most Divines condemn. 2. To favour mercenary obedience, which natural men have disallowed, as less ingenuous; and our Saviour checked some of his followers for, [Ye seek me, because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.] See above, ad p. 26. n. 20. of the first; and ad pag. 207. numb. 15. of the second.  
I am again charged (unjustly) with change of his words, 
p. 260. n. 1.  upon a design; He said, [The solemnity hath no other design, but to teach us what we have received from God, and assist us, to render a pious acknowledgement of it, etc.] which I interpret, of the design, in the first Institutors of this service. Surely if we will speak rationally and properly, the Solemnity itself is not capable of having designs, it must then be, in the first Institutors, or second observers: And if so, the example of gideon's golden Ephod, or his design, in setting it up, is parallel enough with his case of Festivals: Their designs equally in appearance, good; the issue equally bad; both have proved snares in aftertimes. 
n. 3.  From whence it follows, not (as he infers,) [That every Festival designed as a public pious acknowledgement, etc. is to be looked at, as a snare, to all the people of God,] but, that, in the service of God, no plausible design, can privilege an humane Institution, from being a snare to God's people, being made parts of Worship, etc. as in time gideon's Ephod proved, and his Festivals also amongst Papists, as I there said. And sure, (for all his Logical notions) examples are so far argumentative. But how then could he have given a lash to the Lords day, if he had not thus Syllogized? 
n. 4.  [For then indeed the Lords day, which is supposed to be designed for those good ends, must upon the same account, be abolished also.] Upon what account? because, it's supposed to be of the same Institution with his Festival? this he will assert anon; Or because it may, by some, be abused to Superstition, as his Ephod was? This, I suppose he intends: As if the abuse of an Ordinance of God, were to be paralleled with the like abuse of an Ordinance of man. All Gods own Ordinances may be abused to Superstition, but I hope, the Doctor will grant another remedy to them, than abolition: But humane Institutions, (if they may at all be admitted into the Worship of God) if they prove snares to the people of God, deserve no other remedy, than the brazen Serpent, and gideon's Ephod found, a total abolition. The Doctor's inference therefore, upon the Lord's day, proceeds upon his supposition, that its Authority is the same, with his Festivals: or else, if the one, the Lords day, be of Divine, and the other, his Festival, of humane Institution, the one, for such abuses, must be abolished, the other only purged from such abuses.  
We are now coming to make good the charge of Superstition and Will-worship upon the late observation of his Festival: 
p. 261. n. 1.  which the Doctor hath no mind to meddle with; but pleads his largeness on these subjects already, to ease himself of the trouble, and (as he pretends) his Reader also, of an ungrateful penance. When as I dare say, nothing would have been more grateful to many of his Readers, then that he had clearly washed his hands of this charge, or acknowledged the truth of his guilt. And now I see the reason in part, why he waved that necessary debate, of the power of the Church, to institute Ceremonies, such as his Festivals are pleaded to be. In my 9 Sect. of Fest. I propounded and stated the question, as knowing that it would be of great use, in the following parts of this discourse, but he lays it aside, and will by no means, be brought into the list of this debate. See supra ad p. 249. n. 1. His first argument to free the observers from appearance of Will-worship, was this; [They observe this usage in obedience to the Laws of the Church.] I answered, that he ought to have proved, first, that they which instituted the Festival had a lawful power to do it: else Papists may use the same argument for their holidays, 
n. 3.  etc.] Now here his answer; [1. My not proving of this, was founded in my supposing it, that as Magistrates in general, so Governors of a Church, are invested with power to institute Circumstances of Worship, etc.] But here are many misadventures: 1. That he supposes, what he should have here or some where proved; at least after my challenge of him to prove it, Sect. 9 and stating the question for him. 2. The Magistrates civil, have a larger power, to make Laws in things indifferent, than the Governors of the Church, in Religious affairs, who are tied up to the Laws of the word. 3. The Doctor changes the words of the question, which was of Ceremonies, made parts of Religion, or Worship, and not of Circumstances of commanded Worship, as, time, place, etc. The Papists for certain do make their Festivals, Holidays, parts of their Religious Worship, and may not they plead for observation of them, 
p. 262. n. 4.  [They do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church.] And so in other usages of theirs: Hear his second answer to this; [This is interpretable as a far greater kindness to them, than I have ever been guilty of, the Church may command in lawful things, therefore it may do so in unlawful things.] But first, what are the things unlawful, which the Church of Rome commands? adoration of Images, the Mass, etc. He must know, that this will not reach to my answer, which is of observing by others, not commanding by the Church; and he cannot condemn the observers of things unlawful, commanded by the Church, till he have first proved, that the Church had no power to command such things: So by proportion, he cannot justify observers of Festivals by this, that they do it in obedience to the Laws of the Church, till he have not supposed, but proved, the Church had power to institute them; wherein the force of my answer lay, though the Doctor would not see it. 2. But speak to the point of holidays; which the Doctor thinks as lawful as they do: If a Papist should answer my proposition and question; Why do you observe your Festivals? he would answer just as the Doctor does; he does it in obedience to the Church, and therefore it is no Will-worship. But say I, you must first prove the Church hath power to institute them: No, says he, with the Doctor, I suppose that, and therefore do not prove it. What can the Doctor say more? He may not now come and say, the Church of Rome commands things unlawful: (for he and they suppose Festivals to be lawful,) and if he say so, he condemns himself with them. If he shall say, they command them as parts of Worship, and make them Holidays, and that makes them unlawful: he must have recourse to my answer. It will not excuse the observers to say, they do it in obedience to the laws of the Church, unless he prove they had power to command those things unlawful, which he cannot do: And if this answer be good, that the Church of Rome commands things unlawful when she makes her Festival as parts of Religion and Worship, etc. I dare put it upon this issue, that the Doctor is as guilty as they in these crimes, and does them a far greater kindness, than I have ever been guilty of. By my answer to this first comparison, he may see the unjustness of the other three, which he would fain put as absurdities upon me, and make me ridiculous to his Readers. I could easily retort them, but I forbear recrimination. I shall only say, the Doctor varies the question, and then makes his Inferences and Comparisons; for the state of the question was, whether the Church may ordain, and private persons observe Festivals, as Holidays, parts of Worship, etc. and then I dare make comparisons and inferences with him. 1. It is as lawful for the Church of Rome, or any Church, to command other unlawful things, as to command Festivals or observe them, as Holidays, as parts of Worship, etc. for both are equally unlawful. 2. There is equal unreasonableness, in besainting those that are gotten into the Calendar at Rome, and consecrating, that is, making holy a day, and a part of Worship, as in consecrating a day, to the commemorating of the birth of Christ, upon the same terms: especially some of them, which were observed near the Apostles times, as that of Ignatius and Polycarp, is said to be, which cannot be proved of his Festival: But comparisons are odious, and I forbear the rest: he may easily make it out. The only question is, Whether the Doctor (as he does plead for some Festivals, which they of Rome observe as well as he, so) do not make them (as they do) holidays, and parts of Worship, etc. and so be equally guilty of the crimes charged upon them, as they are, which shall by and by be manifested: But something else is first considerable.  
The Doctor justified the observers, by their obedience to the fifth Commandment: I answered, that he might better have justified their obedience by the fourth Commandment, having founded days of public Worship on that Commandment. [It is, (said he) a designation of Time for the special performing of public Worship, as necessary.] Now I supposed, that he by designation of Time, had meant, the special Time there designed, a weekly Sabbath; or one day in seven necessarily to be observed, and then he might have justified their observation, by that Commandment, and needed not have reduced it to the fifth Commandment. But it seems I was mistaken, for he intended no such thing. Hear what he says, [The difference is very conceivable betwixt time or times generally considered, for God's service, 
p. 262. n. 6.  and this or that particular time:] The meaning is, that sometime is necessary by that Commandment, but the particular designation, is at the Churches disposing: the former belongs to the fourth Commandment, the latter to the fifth. See but how liberal the Doctor is, to God. 1. [That God should have some time assigned, for his service, is of the very law of nature, and so much of morality, there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly Sabbath in the fourth Commandment.] Some time, why some time is of the Law of Nature, for the Doctor to eat his breakfast; in as much, as he can do nothing, without some time, and this is all the morality the great School-man, and the Doctor his Symmists, allow to the fourth Commandment: which would have been moral, or rather natural, had there never been any fourth Commandment placed in the Decalogue: But seeing God is Lord of us and all our time, it had been fit to have said, All our time was due to God for his service, except some time be allowed by him, as necessary, for our worldly business: Besides, this some time to be assigned for God's service, is not said to be designed by God, in particular; but only, that some time must be assigned; that is, by the Church, which is poorly begged, as afore. And this is the Helena for which they so much contend: and no marvel; for if they can but get this granted, that the power of designation of the necessary sufficient Time for God's service (a thing of most high concernment) is in the Church, we must grant, that she hath power enough to institute what Ceremonies, she shall think useful, in the service of God. But he is yet more liberal. [2. The fourth Commandment being given to the Jews, for one day in seven, as a fit and moderate proportion of time, it might equitably be inferred, that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes, etc.] But his Colleagues say, that proportion of time, in the fourth Commandment was Ceremonial, and so void; and one day in eight or ten might be sufficient, if the Church so pleased. And what is this equitableness the Doctor speaks of; not just and necessary, it may not be less, yea, must be so much at least; but fit, and convenient, to be designed by the Church, nay, by every Christian, for so he says: For if he should yield it necessary by this Commandment, to set apart one day in seven, he grants the fourth Commandment to be moral, for so much time; which ere long, he will, as others do, deny. There would then remain nothing to be done, but to find out that particular day of seven to be assigned for God and his service, and who hath power to do it. For that he is yet more liberal, than some of his partners, [The first day of the week, and accordingly he supposes it instituted by the Apostles of Christ.] Surely, this is one of the Doctor's Free-will-offerings, and we (if not God) are much beholden to him, if he would not retract this gift, which he will do anon; founding the Lordsday and his Festivals on the same Authority of the Church. But I take what he grants, kindly; If the first day of the week, was by Apostolical, that is, Divine Institution, as one of seven: I ask, by what Rule or Commandment, did they, make that day necessary and moral, if not by the fourth Commandment? and then, it's moral, not only for some time, but for one day in seven, which will hardly be yielded. And again, if the Lordsday be of Apostolical, divine institution, according to the fourth Commandment, it is Holy, above, not only all other days in the week, but above all his Festivals, for which he hath nothing in the fourth Commandment, nor can prove them of Apostolical Institution; the most he pretends to, is but Apostolical practice, and observation.  
And therefore (fearing he hath yielded too much) he starts back, and says, [As among the Jews, 
n. 7.  beside the weekly Sabbath, required by the fourth Commandment, they had many Festivities, some appointed by God himself, others instituted by men. Yet constantly observed, without prejudice to the fourth Commandment: So nothing hinders, but under the Gospel, the Church may ordain Christian Feasts, etc.] As for those Feasts appointed by men, they have their place below, where they shall be spoken to. For those of God's appointment, we do not think the fourth Commandment exclusive, to hinder God, for appointing what days he pleases; only, it presupposing the power of ordaining holidays, to belong to God, it excludes men, for setting up any as holy, without his leave. It cannot therefore, be inferred reasonably, [God had power to appoint what holidays he pleased to the Jews; ergo, the Church under the Gospel, may appoint as many as she will.] Besides, those Festivals of the Jews, (beside the weekly Sabbath) were typical and Ceremonial, and a part of their yoke; which being taken off by Christ, it becomes not the Church to put the same and a greater, upon the necks of Christians. Add to this, that those Festivals, were not properly reducible to the fourth Commandment, requiring but one in seven, whereas the Doctor will fetch them all in under his fundamental morality of some times, to be assigned for God's service, by the fourth Commandment, that is, such as the Church shall appoint, and yet pleads the fifth Commandment, to justify obedience to them, [not as an act of Will-worship, but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church, and so a duty of the fifth Commandment.] Which sure needed not, if the fourth Commandment be moral for assigning some times for God's service, by the Church, for that Commandment will both command, and justify their obedience.  
That we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment, as for one day in seven to be holy, so for our allowance of six days for our own works; 
p. 263. n. 8.  he says, 1. [It hath not the least appearance of truth in it: where did he reduce us to the fourth Commandment?) Did not the Dr. say even now, n. 6. That it's equitable by that Commandment, that a Christian should at least set apart, one day in seven? for more than one in seven, let him look for authority: one in seven shall serve our turn: And I ask, by what Rule or Authority does the Doctor presume to take the allowance of the six days, for his own occasions▪ if not by the fourth Commandment? and will he not by the same Commandment, allow God, one of seven? But where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment? I answer, in Matth. 5. where he professes, he came not to destroy, but to fulfil and establish the Moral Law, whereof the fourth, for one in seven is one: But than says he, ['Tis visible what the consequence must be, even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath, for that certainly was the subject of that Commandment.] Hath not the Dr. 
As he did the second Commandment above ad p. 44. n. 8 The Dr. leaps from p. 152. of mine, to p. 157.  now destroyed one Commandment more out of the Decalogue, which Christ came to establish? or is not this, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Dr. that the subject of the fourth Commandment, was that seventh day Sabbath? for if so, it is as fully void as the commandment for the Paschal Sabbath: or else the Doctor must turn, either Jew, and observe that day, or Anabaptist and Quaker, etc. and make no Sabbath, but every day a Sabbath. I leave it to his choice. The rest that follows in this Section, is impertinent to the main business: Some thing he says, about the mistake of the day and venial sins; not fit to be passed by: For venial sins, 
n. 11, 12.  he hath this passage; [He that talks of venial sins, must be presumed not to exclude the blood of Christ, etc.] I spoke of venial sins, in the notion of Papists; but sure they do not include the blood of Christ, when they talk of venial sins; but rather exclude it, saying, That men need not ask God forgiveness for them; but themselves may satisfy for them, by an Ave Maria, a Pater noster, or a knock on the breast, etc. And the Doctor's language is too like theirs; [The excuse of blameless ignorance will wash away greater errors, than this, if an error.] As holy water washes away venial sins with them. As for the mistake of the day, to be no sin, I intended it ad bominem, to the Doctor, supposing and making the day to be an Holiday, and part of Worship, as the Sabbath, and Paschal day were: wherein to mistake the day, was criminous. Yet let the Doctor consider how near he and others have been to sin, upon the mistake of the day; in the Collect for Christmas day; they used to pray thus, [Almighty God, which hast given us this day, thy Son to be born of a pure Virgin, etc.] If Christ was not born on this day (as it's very uncertain) is not this a manifest untruth? telling it, not only to men, but to God too in their holy Prayers: But enough of that. The Superstition and Will-worship are the crimes that were charged upon his observation of the Festival, oftentimes before, and here more fully and directly; but the Doctor will take no notice of it, but leaps over five or six leaves together. 
p. 264. n. 14  And mark how he excuses this omission: [What Superstition is charged by Chemnitius, on Papists observation of their Holidays, is all answered before it be produced, by this consideration, that Chemnitius allows this and other Festivals, which is all he contended for, who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of Papists.] But, first, though Chemnitius did allow of his Festivals, yet not of his Superstition in the observation of them, any more in him, then in Papists. 2. The Doctor hath taken upon him to be advocate for some Festivals, which are in the Papists Calendar at least, as well as in ours in England, and pleads for them with the same arguments that they do. 3. The same Superstitions charged upon Papists observation of their holidays, are by me there, charged upon some, yea, many amongst us, in some of those particulars, and the instances are all taken out of the Doctors Tract of Festivals, and so intended him for one of the guilty persons; but because it seems, I did not name the Doctor, he takes no notice of all this; I shall therefore now charge home, and lay it so in his way (as between two walls) that he cannot avoid the seeing of it, unless he will tergiversari, turn back, or else fly over all, as formerly he hath done; or rather (which I wish) fall down before the Truth, and give Glory to God.  
But before I come to demonstrate, that the Doctor is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, self-condemned of those two crimes, I desire it may be remembered, first, That I having set down several Species of Superstition, p. 6. s. 5, etc. and most of them taken out of the Doctor himself in his Tract. of Superst. he puts in no exception against them, but seems (if silence be consent) to grant them all: Some at least he assents to, in this discourse, p. 30. n. 30. & 32. 2. That here again I having showed the several ways of the Superstition, charged by Chemnitius, on the observation of holidays, by the Papists, and applied them, in particular to himself; he neither gives consent to them by his silence, or wilfully declines to vindicate himself from the charge. For if he could not assent unto them, it concerned him to have denied and opposed them, in both the places, as dangerous grounds, to conclude against his own opinion and practice, and had given me occasion thereby, to confirm them, by Reason, and Testimonies of Orthodox Divines: which being not by him done, I might the rather take them as granted, and only borrow the propositions from him, and leave him or the Reader to make up the conclusion: as thus, first, [To place more holiness in days, than God hath placed in them, is superstitious:] So Chemnitius asserts, so I laid it down Superst, Sect. 10. and it is generally the judgement of our Divines, upon this sufficient reason, because [God only can Sanctify things or times for the Sanctifying of those that use them:] This is thus far yielded by the Dr. himself, [That to place more holiness in them, than is due to them, is faulty, Superst. s. 50.] [If I count it holy in that degree, than I offend not,] implying if he did more, he then offended; and being there provoked by me, to show what degrees of holiness, a Church, or Person, puts upon things or times, he again waves it in his last, as able to asign none; and then the proposition is undeniable, [To place holiness, or more holiness, in days than God hath placed in them, is Superstitious.]  
But the Doctor (and his Symmists) places holiness in days, where God hath placed none, and more than God hath placed in them: That God hath placed no Holiness in his Festival, is confessed; by denying Christ or his Apostles to have instituted it. Of Fest. Sect. 28, 77. That he places holiness in it, appears by his own words, when he says, [The day is to be esteemed above other days of the year; (Lords days too it seems) consecrating it from common to sacred uses,] Ibid. s. 59 that for his opinion and judgement: And that in practice, he placed more, at least equal holiness in it, with the Lords day; he confesses, [That the day hath been observed, if not much more, certainly as strictly as any Lord's day in the year, etc.] Sect. 24. Yea, more strictly (said I) with more solemn services, with stricter cessation from sports, then on the Lord's day, on which sports were permitted, but not touching of Cards or Dice that day. Ibid. The Assumption than is justified, the Doctor does place more holiness in his Festivals, than God hath placed in it. Therefore he is Superstitious.  
2. [To esteem the observation of that day, and the services done on that day, to be better & more pleasing and acceptable to God, than the observation of any other day, (the Lord's day itself) and then the services done on other days, is a superstitious vanity.] So Chemnitius. So I asserted, Superst. s. 13. to which the Doctor enters no descent: or if he should, I would thus confirm it, [because it fastens some promise on Christ, which he hath not made in the Gospel:] The Drs. own words, in a like case, Superst. s. 45. But the Doctor esteems the observation of that day and the services done on that day, to be better, more pleasing and acceptable to God, then, etc. For the observation of the day, he makes it a Free-will-offering, to dedicate and consecrate the day to God, and asserts of the Institution of it; 
See this account, p. 197. n. 4. & p. 229. n. 14. more and greater acceptance, etc.  [It is (more than lawful) pious in itself.] Sect. 77 And the services to be more acceptable to God, then on other days, results from his frequent assertion, [That such services being not commanded, are the more acceptable because voluntary:] So he says, [When in the service of God, a man out of a pious affection shall do any thing else, beside what God hath commanded, by any particular precept, this action of his is to be accounted so much more commendable and acceptable to God:] Will-worsh. s. 16. And again, [The more acceptable for the voluntaries, as being in that, parallel to those oblations, which are pronounced most acceptable, s. 19] But I assume, the observation (and dedication) of his Festival, together with the services done upon the day, are such as God hath not commanded by any particular precept, but voluntary; and therefore the more acceptable, by the Doctor's Divinity; the conclusion than may not be refused; therefore he is superstitious.  
3. [To place the Worship of God in observation of a day, which God hath not made holy, is superstitious:] So Chemnitius charges the Papists to do, and this was by me laid down as a Species of Superstition, Sect. 6. & 8. Of Superst. Whereunto we have the Doctor's consent or silence: But if he should deny it, it might be proved thus, both from the definition of Superstition given by the School-man, [A vice contrary to Religion in the excess,] which the Scripture calls, addition to the Rule of Worship, and also by the scope and sum of the second Commandment; [God must prescribe his own Worship,] which the Doctor himself hath glossed, as the sense of that Commandment, as is cleared above. And it may yet be farther confirmed from his words and grants. [To make new sorts or kinds of Worship, is by him condemned as Superstition, p. 12. n. 13.] But to place the Worship of God in the observation of any day, that God hath not made holy, is to make a new sort or kind of Worship, and consequently, is Superstition.  
But the Doctor places the Worship of God in the observation of a day, which God (confessedly) hath not made holy, his Festival: This I shall prove many ways. 1. His Festival is one of his Free-will-offerings, which anciently was a part of Worship. 2. He calls it, Will-worship, which includes voluntary uncommanded Worship, (so he often explains it) and so being uncommanded Worship, it is a new sort, or kind of Worship, which God hath not commanded. 3. He calls the consecration of it, a voluntary oblation, (which signifies Worship.) [An oblation to God in honour to him; Sect. 59 Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ, Sect. 28.] 4. He equals the observation of it, with the Lordsday, both in abstaining from labours, and making the very rest itself an oblation to God; as we shall hear in the next. All these make it a part of Worship; as high as the Lordsday, our Christian Sabbath, made holy by Divine institution: Therefore again, the Doctor in so doing, is superstitious.  
[4. To forbid labours on that day, when they hinder not the public Worship (if God have not made it holy) is superstitious.] The reason is, because God allows men six days for their own works. And though it be lawful for the Magistrate or Church, to set a part a Time ordinarily for public Worship, yet not to prohibit labours all the day, when that public Worship is ended, and to make Rest necessary for the whole day: for that is to make it as holy, as God himself did and doth the Sabbath.  
But the Doctor forbids labours, and requires rest, from sports, much more sure from labours, all the day of his Festival: So he says, Fest. Sect. 59 [People may not without offence to God, follow their lawful (as that signifies ordinary, particular, or on other days lawful) vocations;— Rest itself is farther capable of the honour of being an oblation to God, if in honour to him, we thus offer some part of our time unto his service.] What did God require more on his Sabbath, to make it holy? [In it thou shalt do no manner of work] It's true indeed, the Doctor speaks there of the Institution of the Church, and the command of God to honour our superiors, by submiting to them, and seems to limit this strictness of Rest to the Public Assembly on that day: But when he makes Rest an oblation to God, and forbids sports, cards, and dice on that day, I can hardly believe the Doctor will allow of lawful labours, 
Following the plough or attending the shop. p. 258 n. 3.  after the public Assembly is over: Yea, it is known, that it was held, and accordingly censured as more criminous to work on this day, then on the Lordsday: True it is also, that the Public Worship of God on any day, requires for the time, cessation from our own works (as necessarily inconsistent at the same time) but this is equally required on any day, when public (or private) Worship is commanded, as on his Festival day. But to make it necessary to Rest from labours, and a sin for people to follow their vocations, on the Festival day, when the Worship is ended, is that we charge with the crime of Superstition: And this the Doctor does; ergo, he is superstitious.  
[5. To place more virtue in things or times, then either naturally they have in them, or by the Institution of God, is superstitious:] So I asserted, Sect. 14. So the Doctor asserted of Superst. s. 
See account. p. 37. n. 17. placing more virtue in them, is a fault.  45. [The placing of more virtue in some things, then either naturally, or by the Rule of God's word, may be thought to belong to them, is a Nimiety, and Superstition, and the reasons are strong to confirm it.] [The doing of which is either utterly groundless, and then it is folly; or else it fastens some promise on Christ, which he hath not made in the Gospel.]  
But the Doctor places more virtue in some things and times particularly, in his Festival, then either naturally or by the Rule of God's word belongs unto them: This I shall prove from himself: To expect acceptance, and greater reward, for uncommanded service, or Worship, then for commanded duties, is to place more virtue in them, then either naturally, or by the Rule of the word belongs to them, for there is no promise made to such uncommanded virtues, or Worship: as hath been proved above: But the Doctor does expressly assert, and confidently expect, better acceptance, and greater reward, for uncommanded services; or his Will worship, pag. 229. n. 14, 15. Therefore he places more virtue in his Will-worship, (such he makes his Festival) then doth belong unto it, and consequently, he proves himself to be superstitious.  
6. Lastly, [Alderman uncommanded Worship, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is superstitious:] It's made by all our Divines, a Species of Superstition, and by the School-man; to Worship God, ut non debet, with uncommanded Worship, is a kind of Superstition; Yea, and by the Doctor himself, it must be so concluded, thus, [Alderman false Worship is superstition,] so here p. 59 n. 3. [Superstition is the giving of false Worship to the true God.] And elsewhere, but all uncommanded Worship, is false Worship, the Doctor I know denies this proposition, but without all just reason; yet so he says in the same place; [False worship is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worship: for certainly all such, is not false.] But I have sufficiently proved that proposition, thus, [All forbidden Worship, is false Worship;] that the Doctor cannot deny: But all uncommanded Worship, is forbidden: This is proved above, by the scope of the second Commandment, and granted so, by the Doctors own gloss; God must prescribe his own Worship; ergo, no man may invent and prescribe it, and consequently, all not commanded by God is forbidden, and by a further consequence, superstitious. And from the Doctor himself once more, [To invent and make new sorts or kinds of Worship, is superstitious, p. 12. n. 13. but to set up uncommanded Worship, that is, not commanded by God, is to invent and make new sorts of Worship: Therefore it is superstitious: Thus the Major is good. But the Doctor pleading for his Festival as he does, sets up uncommanded Worship: That he makes it a part of Worship, is proved above, in the third Argument. And making it an example of his Will-worship, he grants it to be Worship: That it is not commanded by God, was also granted, Will-worship he explains, by uncommanded Worship, or will-devised Worship: It is then an uncommanded Worship, and so superstitious. And thus we have proved, from the Drs. own Assertions, and practice, that in observation of his Festival, he was grossly superstitious, and (whether he will confess it or no,) is self-condemned. I shall leave it to the judgement of the Reader, and proceed to consider how he will excuse the matter of Riot, attending on it.  
There are many things of lesser concernment, little to the main business, which I shall therefore pass by: One thing may not be omitted, the Good will the Doctor bears to the Lords day; every way to equal it at least, with his Festivals. For here, and n. 
p. 266. n. 5.  7. & 16.35. Because the Lordsday is subject to the same abuses of Riot and profaneness, with his Festival, he would weaken the argument for abolition of his Feasts; [That if abuse must abolish a custom, it might hazard the Lordsday, which hath been so abused.] But we have said afore, that there is not the same reason for Divine Institutions, and humane Inventions, in the Worship of God. The former must not be abolished for any abuses; but the latter, when abuses do almost inseparably stick to them, the best way is, to separate them from the service of God. If he say, 
n. 14. & 16  might not Reformation serve but abscision only? Truly, it is little for the credit of his Governors, that in so long time, as since the Reformation, they never attempted any Reformation of the Riot and Profanations of his Festival, but rather countenanced them, in their own and others Families, when the abuses, not of Riot and Revellings only, but of Superstition also (for so I meant) have been so notorious.  
I said, Sect. 18. [The Heathen usages, do imply, that the Festival itself was instituted to gratify the Heathens, by imitation of their Feasts at the same time of the year.] 
n. 6.  The Doctor speaks a little to the usages, but denies the Festival to have been instituted to gratify the Heathens, though he confessed the Saturnalia to be celebrated in the same month of Decemb. Sect. 63. But this makes it very suspicious, the Feast was instituted to gratify the Heathen; hear a great Papist speak his judgement in this matter; [What wonder if the grown customs among the Gentiles (we may add the Jews also) were such, as from which though they were converted to Christianisme, 
Baron, ad An. 58. p. 606. Quid mirum, &c  they were yet so hardly taken, that it might seem impossible to put them quite off? what wonder I say, if the most holy Bishops have granted them place, in the Worship of God.] But hear another more expressly, in matter of Feasts, it is Hospinian, after Beat. Rhenanus, in Tertul. de Coron. Mil. [The old Bishops were wont, 
De Orig. Fest. volluere veteres Episcop. etc.  when they could not call men from the Superstitions of the Heathens, by the Preaching of the word, to seek at least to do it, by observing their Holidays, with their own Worship. But this was to drive out one nail with another, no way to take off the Superstition. Albeit then, the beginning of these Solemnities was tolerable at first, yet at last, they grew to such an heap of Superstitions, that they became the fountain and beginning of horrible errors and Susterstitions] I might add to these Doctor Jackson, 
Orig. of idol. Sect. 4. c. 23.  who showeth the first occasion of Superstition in Christians to have been, the infirmities, whereby it came to pass, that Heathenish (and Jewish) Rites, where to men had been long accustomed, could not easily be extirpated: See more there, the mischief of such Accommodations.  
The Apostle (said I) exercised his discipline upon the Agapae, those Love Feasts, as well as upon the riotous part: 
p. 269. n. 17  To this the Doctor says, [It was the Lord's Supper into which that excess was crept. Did Paul (he asks) destroy and abolish this Feast, the Lords Supper?] He is still unhappy in his comparisons of Divine Institutions, with Humane Inventions and Additions: He tells us, n. 18. [There were two parts of the Lords Supper: first Bread and Wine taken in commemoration of Christ's Body and Blood: the other in eating and drinking together more liberally: this latter was taken away upon unreformable abuses of it.] But then sure, the Apostle needed not to exercise his discipline upon the first part, the Lords Supper, by abolition of a Divine Institution; but upon the Feasting part; wherein might be distinguished, 1. The Love feast itself (begun upon good intentions, to relieve the poor, and testify brotherly affections) 2. The Riot and excess that crept into it; which was separable from the former, and yet the Apostle takes away the Feast itself, as well as the Riotous part; because, as the Doctor says, of the too common unreformable abuses of it: Say the same of his Festival, abused both to Superstition and Riot.  
But he tells us (out of Justin Martyr) how this Feast was reform; [Offerings not lessened, 
p. 270. n. 20  but otherwise disposed of, and that which was not eaten at the Lords table, was kept in a common bank for the poor, etc.] Which is, as if he should say, the Feast itself was abolished, but that Charity which was spent formerly in Riot, was otherwise disposed of, and if this will serve his turn; it shall serve mine also, in reformation of his Festival; as he prescribes, n. 21. But how satisfyingly the Doctor excuses his indulgence to the eating and sporting part, n. 22, 23. let the Reader judge? When I have but once more presented his former words, (which he labours to mollify or palliate) Thus he said, Sect. 22. of Fest. [For the eating and sporting part, that need not be abolished, save only in case of great and general abuses. 2. Till the abuses are not only so great, as discernible to out balance the good uses, but also so general, that the whole Church, in a manner, runs madding into these very great abuses.] But said I, this is pretty untempered mortar, and the sowing pillows under profane men's elbows: For, 1. For the eating part, (I meant the Riotous part) he knows the Apostle did abolish the Love Feasts themselves, not stay to reform the great and general abuses of them. 2. For the sporting part, such as was much unbeseeming the Festivity of such a Saviour, the Doctor will not yield, that that shall be abolished, save in case only of great and general abuses; Nay, 3. not for great and general abuses, [Till they be so great, as to out-ballance the good uses, and so general, that the whole Church runs madding into them.] 4. Those abuses, I said have been long so great, that they have out-ballanced the good uses, and so general, that the whole nation hath run mad into them, and yet the eating and sporting part, the riot, & revel was never attempted to be reform; for those too common unreformable abuses, the like whereof were found in, and caused the abolition of those Love-feasts, as he said, p. 270. n. 18.  
Yet see again his good will and and respect to the Lordsday; thus he says, [I as hearty wish a devout, 
p. 272. n. 24  conscientious, profitable observation of the Lordsday, as of any other Festivity, etc.] How greatly is God and his Day beholden to his liberality. He says not, I could wish the Festival days, were as devoutly, etc. observed as the Lordsday; that had preferred it a little, as the standard of observation of holidays. But his way depresses it, below his Festivals, and makes them (as he did Easter, above p. 243.) the standard of devotion to the Lordsday. And it's very like his practice in observation of the Days was answerable; for he told us of Christmas day, [That it was observed with much more, at least as strictly as any Lordsday in the year.] Equal strictness was too much, but more, is more unequal and unjust. This he would evade, by interpreting the words by those which follow, [In frequenting the services of the Church, in use of the Liturgy, Sermon, Sacraments, etc. without prejudice to the Lordsday, on which the Lord's Supper, was not constantly celebrated.] But this confesses the fact; that besides all that pompous show in Cathedrals, of Vestments, and Music, etc. the 
* The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, I make an ingredient in the strictness of the Celebration of of the Festivity. numb. 27. pag. 172.  Lords Supper (which he knows was anciently celebrated, every Lordsday, and somewhere oftener) should be enjoined strictly to be celebrated on Christmas day, and was by some so observed, and not on the Lordsday. This imported some greater Holiness, and Honour to that day, above the Lordsday, and we then might have wished (as hearty as the Doctor does now) that the Lords day, might have been kept as devoutly, etc. as the Festival day, and fit it was, it should have had some pre-eminence, as being of Divine Institution, which his Festival had not.  
The Apostolical Institution of the Lordsday, was, I thought, granted by the Doctor, Fest. Sect. 31. and Apostolical Institutions to be Divine, was also asserted, Quer. 1. s. 22. 
p. 273. n. 30.  Yet how willingly would he, and how subtly does he retract, what he had granted, to make either the Lordsday equally Ecclesiastical with his Festival, or his Festival, equally Apostolical, with the Lordsday. For I having charged him to assert, Sect. 57 [The Lordsday to be by the same authority appointed,] viz. of the Church: See how he shuffles to avoid it, first, [I did grant it, though I know not in what words of Scripture, that Institution (of the Lords day) is set down.] Was he not then too rash to acknowledge what he could not by Scripture, some way make out. He pleads Infant Baptism to be the institution of Christ, & of Apostolical Practice, though he cannot tell where to find either of them in Scripture: He might have gratified the Lordsday with the same allowance, especially having the mention of the Lordsday there, and observation of it by the Apostles, (which presupposes an Institution) which the other wants. 2. He takes off the objection from s. 57 thus, 
p. 273. n. 30.  Those words there used, [Though the Lordsday be by the same authority appointed,] do not belong to the stating of the question, and no affirmation that the Lordsday is not instituted by any higher authority than Christmas-day, etc.] Let the Reader turn to the place and judge; He had said, [The same Church, or any other authority equal to that, obliges, etc.] Then follows, [And though the Lord's day, be by the same Authority appointed,] that must needs be, the Church, which obliges, etc. 3. But he goes on, and says, [He is confessed in my Margin, to have said, the Apostles instituted the Lord's day, and he speaks as plainly, Sect. 57 of Christmas day, that it hath its Institution and usage from the universal Church.] But I ask, (if he equivocate not with us) does not this, put a plain difference between the Institution of the Lordsday, and Christmas-day, the one Apostolical, the other Ecclesiastical? or else he must make them both of the same Authority, and was not that his design, without any calumny? Here yet more. 4. [Either this is a calumny in the Diatribist, or else that the word Church, must be taken so, as to comprehend that part of it, of which the Apostles were rulers in person, and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted; the Church of the Apostles, Instituted the Lordsday, and either they personally or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals, of Easter, etc.] But this is a miserable prevarication: For, 1. What means he by the Church of the 
* See p. 39 n. 4. Universal Church, including the Apostles, chief pastors thereof, or the succeeding Churches, with their Governors.  Apostles, which instituted the Lordsday? either the Apostles themselves, (as it's usual with some, to call the Rulers, the Bishops, only, the Church:) and then it is of Divine Institution, and so differs sufficiently from Institutions of the succeeding Church, or Rulers: Or the Church without, or with the Apostles; but he cannot show any such power in the Church, to institute Ceremonies as parts of Worship, without them, or with them; neither then could it be called an Apostolical Institution, but Ecclesiastical rather, if the Apostles were not considered as Apostles, but as Governors of the Church, and so not of Divine Institution. 2. Yet how doubtfully he speaks of his Christmas; [Either they personally or their Successors used and delivered down the other Festivals.] If not they personally, but their successors, then behold a different authority again; they personally instituted the Lordsday; but not his Christmas; then they are not both by the same authority appointed. 3 Yet more warily; [They or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals.] He should have said, they (not used, that imports but their practice, but) appointed or instituted the Festivals and delivered them down, etc. Or else the difference would again appear; the one had Institution, the other only usage or practice: And he may remember how he hath all along declined Apostolical Institution, and pleaded only their practice, for his Festivals, and now declines the Church's Institution also, and talks only of their using and delivering them down to posterity 4. He was speaking of the same authority, for the Lordsday, and Christmas day, but now concludes with Easter day, and other Festivities: The reason is, because he hath something in story, for Easter, (not as an Apostolical Institution, but Ecclesiastical usage only) but not a word in the prime Antiquity, for his Christmas, either Institution, or observation; So this was a blind for his Reader. Lastly, what needed all this wariness, and modesty; when we shall hear him take confidence upon him shortly, to affirm; [Christmas is certainly derived from the Apostles,] p. 276. n. 3. Of which, in its place.  
For the lawfulness of Cards and Dice, even in his holy Festival, 
p. 274. n. 32.  (as at other times) we have here the Doctor's opinion: I purpose not to follow him into a new controversy; enough hath been said by learned men, and perhaps enough against them, by some, both Ancient Fathers, (beside Heathens) and modern Casuists (whom the Doctor will not vouchsafe to read) to persuade tender consciences to forbear them: And as for those that allow and plead for their lawfulness, they bring in so many cautions, that, if it be not impossible, it's very improbable that one of an hundred doth or can observe them. The Doctor himself hath some considerable. [1. Used moderately. 2. As diversions. 3. No way abused by our inordinacy;] that is, 
Mr. Gatac. of Lots. c. 8. p. 236, etc.  as others have it, a man must not spend, 1. Too much time. 2. Too much patience. 3. Too much estate, at them; and many others, too long to repeat, too hard for most Gamesters to remember; much more to observe and practise. Amongst the rest, unseasonable use is one offence; when they are used, in times, that require more than ordinary Holiness; as Festivals, this of Christmas, especially, were accounted. Now if that Author, and the Doctor would allow them lawful, yet at that time, they were surely very unseasonable intertainments of a Festivity for a Spiritual Saviour, and (as the Doctor grants,) n. 35. [Services fit for the Revels of Bacchus, etc.] But let the Dr. and others but say (as they do) Cards and Dice are lawful, people will run away with the allowance, and leave them to come after with the cautions. And if these abuses, in violation of the caution, be ordinary, and almost inseparable, from those sports, and unreformable (as he said of the like, in the Love-feasts) not one of many thousands observing, nor caring to observe them; it will not become the Doctor's great Piety, to open that door to profaneness, which he will never be able to shut again. But he knows, these were but part of the Festivals intertainments, in many great houses: there were promiscuous dance, and Lords of misrule, and besides, surfeiting and drunkenness, chambering, and wantonness, the common attendants, and consequents of such liberty; which as they were not endeavoured to be reform; so are in the vulgar, unreformable, unless by abolition of the occasions. As, I believe, the Doctor will find when ever he goes about it. To regest the same abuse, 
n. 34, 35.  on the Lord's day, or the like, hath been shown to be very impertinent and injurious to the dispute between us. And so much for that.  
How undeniable, or rather how uncertain and insufficient his evidences were, 
p. 275. n. 3.  that the Feast of Easter was observed by the Apostles, as a Christian Feast, or Holiday, hath been made appear above, and the case to be the same, between Easter and Christmas, hath also been considered, and thus far yielded, or proved, that neither of them were of Apostolical Institution, or observation; and it was sufficient for me to use no other arguments against his Christmas, than against his Easter; those that were used against one, being rather more strong against the other: The arguments were three, the last whereof, from the different observation of it the Doctor waves, and upon his former Supposition, that Easter was (not Instituted, but) observed by the Apostles; he tells us, [His affirmation mu●… ascend higher than it ever meant to have done, and not proceed disjunctively, that this Feast is derived from the Apostles, or the succeeding Church but leaving out the latter part of the partition, fix upon the former, that, being yielded to have the same Original with Easter, it is certainly derived from the Apostles, as Easter was.] This is no more than I expected, that the Doctor would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
2 Tim. 3.13.  ascend higher in his after affirmations, th●n ever he meant to have done; Error is like a swift running river, which upon opposition, rises higher, and grows more violent. But I expected he would rise one degree yet higher, that is, from an Apostolical usage, or observation, to an Institution: It may be, he means so much, by the word, (derived) from the Apostles. Easter itself was not pleaded as an Apostolical Institution, bu● Observation, which how unsatisfying it is, was showed above: And mark the proof here; the evidences now brought, are not for Easter, but for other Festivities of Ignatius and Polycarp; 
n. 4, 5.  who died after the Apostles, and (to see the luck of it, if I may use his words) are razed out of our Church Calendar. Yet from these, 
n. 6. p. 276.  the D●ctor assumes, or [resumes his former affirmation without all diffidence, that other Festivals, besides that of the weekly Lords day, were derived to us, some certainly from the Apostles, others from the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles:] If I should have made so lose an Inference, upon such premises, my Logic had heard of it, on both ears: The Affirmation was, that certainly Christmas was derived from the Apostles, because Easter was so; Easter was so, because the Festivities of Ignatius and Polycarp, were set up soon after the Apostles. And the conclusion is, other Festivals were derived some certainly from the Apostles, others from the succeeding Church: Some certainly from the Apostles? pray, which were they? leave out, but the Lordsday, which was not derived only (if that signify only usage) but instituted by the Apostles, and say, without begging, which were they? Easter and Christmas; which is the question: But how came in the Lords-weekly-day, here, of which no question, but it was of Apostolical Institution? either to give it a slubber, that it was but an Apostolical usage, to levelly it with his Festival, or to baffle his Reader, that he might not stumble at his too confident affirmation, that Christmas was certainly derived from the Apostles; because the Lordsday was so. And yet after all this confidence, see his diffidence, where to place the Original of his Christmas: for thus he goes on; [In one of which ranks, (Apostles or succeeding Church) though I have no reason to doubt, but this of the Nativity is to be placed: Yet because we have not those evidences of the Fact, which we have of Easter and others, I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainty, nor affirm more than what the Tratise hath showed out of the Ancient Fathers, that this Feast is deduced to us, early from the first antiquity,] Parturiunt montes, etc. Sure the first Antiquity, was from the Apostles days; but he dare not lay it upon them certainly, 
Though Constant. in the fourth Cent. did make orders for the observation of the Lords day, and other days, yet not a word of Christmas which is very strange, if then in usage.  because of uncertainties, and yet affirmed confidently it was derived from them: Socrates tells us, the Apostles did not settle any Laws for Festivals; than not for this of the Nativity; how then was it derived from the Apostles? And if derived from the Apostles authority, how is it not an Apostolical Institution? The Doctor shifts off this, by their observation, which of his Christmas can never be proved. Thus he shakes off also, his friend the Lord Falkland, who, in all probability, hath discovered the Original of this and other Festivals. He is also silent to what I said of his reasonable Inducement, for the Institution of this Festival; concluding with his old mistake, (if I may not call it a calumny,) [That all uncommanded performances are here again blasted, by the express words of the second Commandment, and Col. 2.23.] Which was spoken only of uncommanded Worship; But sure (to use his own words) we have formerly spoken enough (and too much) of this arguing.  
Concerning the Feast of Dedication; I shall not need to be long: 
p. 277. n. 1.  First, I said, there were reasons to think, it was not a Religious Festival, but civil, as that of Purim seems to be: Est. 9.21, 22. For, first, it's certain of this last, that it was not observed with Acts and Services of Religion, Sacrifices, etc. because those must be observed only at Jerusalem, upon the Altar there, (which was demolished at that time) but this of purim, was observed at Shusan: where, had they an Altar, they might not offer sacrifice, 
See supra p. 46. n. 14. & p. 281. n. 20.  or keep a Religious Feast, by the Doctors own confession. 2. It's said, they kept it (as they ordered it) [A day of Feasting and joy, and sending portions, and gifts to the poor.] Without any mention of Religious services: The like is said of the Feast of Dedication, [They ordered, it should be kept yearly, with mirth and gladness,] but no command or order for Sacrifices, in after times; the Doctor is very confident that it was a Religious Feast, and would prove it from the text. 1. Maccab. 4.56. [They risen up early and offered Sacrifices according to the Law, etc. And the people fell down upon their faces, worshipping and praising God, etc.] But first, the Doctor joins things together, which are distant in the text; for he says, n. 8. [Ordaining that it should be so kept for the future, from year to year.] So kept, is not in the text, as if they ordained it should be kept with Sacrifices as at first it was; but only, kept with mirth and gladness.] 2. Sacrifices at a Feast made not the Feast Religious; there were Sacrifices offered every day at Jerusalem, when they kept a civil Feast: As amongst us, the birth days or coronation days of our Kings, were but civil Feasts, to be kept with mirth and joy; suppose there were any prayers or preaching on those days, these would not make those Feasts Religious. The fifth of Novemb. was commanded to be kept as a day of joy and rejoicing, and prayers and preaching only in the morning; but yet, I think, the Doctor will not call it a Religious Feast. At our private Feasts, the Lord Major's day, or days of the Companies Feasts, they meet at Church, and have prayers and preach, yet those Feasts are not called Religious Feasts, but Civil. 3. Those Sacrifices offered, are said to be according to the Law, that may be understood, either with respect to the Altar, (now re-edified) where they were by Law commanded only to offer; or with respect to the kind of offerings which were all ordered by Law, [May not (says he) burnt-offerings according to the Law, approved and commanded, be used in a Religious Feast?] No doubt, they may and must, if so commanded: But the question is, whether offerings of that kind, might not be used also in a civil Feast, among the Jews? and the Doctor must not beg it. And if those Sacrifices were commanded by the Law, they were no  offerings, which only pretend to Worship, which mirth and gladness, the other ingredients of that Feast, could not do.  
In all this, hitherto said, there was no great conviction, 
p. 279. n. 10  to prevail with me, [That this was a Religious Feast instituted by the Church.] I shall try once more to convince the Doctor, that either it was not a Religious Feast, or not approved by God. Thus I argue: [To make a new kind of Worship, not commanded by God, is unlawful, and not approved by God: But to make a Religious Feast, not commanded by God, is to make a new kind of Worship; ergo,] The Major is the Doctors own concession, above. The Minor is proved, because a Religious Feast, was and is, a part of Worship, as is evident in all the Feasts of God's Institution; than it follows, that either they did not make the Feast of Dedication a Religious Feast, or if they did, they transgressed the Rule, and could not be approved by God. That the Doctor makes it a Religious Feast, is evident, by his earnest pleading for it, under that notion, and disclaiming it as civil. If he shall say (as it's all is left to say) they made it not a part of Worship, but a Circumstance of worship; he first makes it not a Religious Feast for which he hath so much pleaded, and then hath lost his instance, of this Feast, to his purpose; for than it was no more an Holiday, than any other day of the year. And now he may consider [how well he hath demonstrated the vanity of all my three Diatribees, of Superstition, Will-worship, Festivals,] and the rest: For he makes his Festival a Will-worship, that is, a Worship uncommanded, and so a Religious Feast, and a part of Worship: and so will be found guilty of Superstition and Will-worship, in observation of his Festival, which is supra statutum, an Addition to the word, against the second and fourth Commandments, and Col. 2.23. 
n. 11.  And thus I shall assert; [If his Christmas Feast, be answerable perfectly to this of the Dedication, and hold analogy with that,] as he says, than they are either both Religious Feasts, and parts of Worship of humane institution, and both unlawful; or if they be both but circumstances of Worship, they are nothing to the purpose, which is of uncommanded Worship, not of uncommanded Circumstances of Worship. And that they went beyond their commission, in making it an annual Religious Feast, I hinted, by saying, that neither Solomon nor Zerubbabel, did make theirs so, for aught we read. 
n. 14.  [Here (says he) are the Symptoms again of a desperate cause; that fain would catch at some supports but is forsaken of all] His evidences are all too short; 1. That Judas, etc. ordained it should be kept thus from year to year, is partly true, but not evident, they kept it thus, that is as a Religious Feast; but in mirth and gladness; or if they did, the question is, (which the Doctor must not beg) whether they did well or no, the Negative whereof is proved above: 2. It's not evident it was so observed (as a Religious Feast) by the Jews in Christ's time; it might be, as a civil Feast. 3. Nor is it evident, that though Christ was present in the Temple, at the Feast time, he approved and confirmed it. If it was only a civil Feast, it is nothing to the purpose, though he approved it, as he did the wedding Feast, John 2. If it was a Religious Feast, and so made a part of Worship, Christ would not approve it, because they that did so institute, or so observe it, went beyond their commission. As for those learned men, that interpreted it of solomon's or Zerubbabels' Dedication, 
p. 280. n. 15  as they certainly erred in so doing, (as I proved) so they mistook in making of them annual; for the reason by me given; they might make an extraordinary day of thanksgiving, for some special mercy, (as a day of Humiliation for some judgement felt, or feared) for then God calls to those duties: but to make either of them Annual and perpetual, I desire to see their commission: And this may answer the Doctor's demand; 
n. 16.  [Supposing those two were never observed but once, why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often or annually? If the first offended not, by being super statutum, how could the second or hundreth— repetition render it criminous?] I shall but demand of him; supposing Jehoshaphat, in an exigent, called and made a solemn day of Humiliation; why might he not have made it annual, to posterity, if the first offended not, how the annual repetition of it? Answer one, and answer both. The resolution is given above: A Magistrate may, upon a special occasion appoint a Feast or Fast; but to make those days perpetually Religious Feasts or Fasts, he hath no commission: And if he make a civil Feast perpetual, it's nothing to our debate. Let not the Doctor snarl at this answer; I shall boldly say, 
n. 17.  if King Lucius never so long ago, or any other King had kept Christmas day, or Good-friday, as Religious and parts of Worship (as Papists do now, and the Doctor with them) I should have written Triplicem Diatriben against them, as now I do against the Doctor. But if he had made them no more than Circumstances of Worship, I should never have used my pen against him.  
That Christ was present at the Feast, as a Feast, 
n. 18.  is also begged, but nor is, nor can be proved; the text says not, he was at the Feast, 
Vide Junium. contr. 3. l. 4 a. 17. an. 6. Pelican. in 1 Mac. 4.  but Jesus walked in the Temple. Now take the Doctor's inferences, or Interrogations: [Was not that an evidence of Christ's approbation?] Jesus walked in the Temple; ergo, he approved the Festival; take another like it, Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at Pentecost; ergo, he approved and confirmed that Festival after Christ had abolished it: and then add, would Paul have been present at an unlawful, superstitious, detestable feast, etc. and never have reprehended it? so the Doctor argues, [Christ was at the Feast; ergo, if unlawful, he would have reprehended it. But he doth not reprehend it; ergo, he approved it.] But, first, let him not beg Christ was at it, as a Religious Feast. 2. Let him remember his own Rule, [There is small virtue in an argument from Scripture Negatiuè.] p. 244. n. 12. 3. Nor was it any more scandalous for Christ to be in the Temple, at the time of the Feast, then for Paul and other Apostles, to be there at Pentecost and other times, when Temple and Festivals were voided by Christ's death. If I had made such lose inferences, how would the Doctor have insulted? He cannot but know, that my answer, is made by very learned men, over whom the Doctor would not thus triumph. 
n. 20. p 28.  I could now return him his own words a little inverted. What if Jesus walked in the Temple on the Feast day, doth it therefore follow, that he approved? etc. This is a new kind of arguing still, etc.  
[Marriage, 
n. 21.  (he says) might be approved, to be Religious:] If he would engage in a new controversy: This indeed, if proved, would help to countenance his Virginity or Caelibate, to be Religious, and a part of Worship, as Papists make it: But why Religious? because, there are Prayers, and Sacrament, etc. at the Celebration of it. But this might turn all Civil Feasts into Religious, when those or some of those services are premised to them. Yea, our ordinary meals, when Prayers for a blessing before, and Praises after, are used, would be then turned into Religious Feasts. But he says, [The only difference between a Civil and a Religious Feast is, that in the one, the public services of the Church (some or all of them) are used, adding Festival diet also, whereas the other is made up only of the latter.] But enough of this afore, ad p. 277. n. 1. His question then, is easily answered: 
n. 22.  [Can the services of the Church being added, make that criminous which was innocent before? make that which was but civil before, sacrilegious and impious?] That was not the question, but whether the services of the Church make a civil Feast Religious? And whether, (beside Superstition and Will-worship) Riot and revel do not pollute his most sacred Festival? This rarity the Doctor was acquainted with before; but he would forget it, to give me a slur in the eyes of his Reader.  
For the Feast of Purim, Hest. 9 There are many answers given by learned men; 1. That it was a civil Feast; which appears probable by the text; they made it a day of Feasting and Joy, etc. without any mention of Religious services; as I said above, see ad p. 277. n. 1. But the Doctor instead of demonstrating will needs suppose; 
p. 282. n. 24.  [That a day of rest, of assembly, of feasting and gladness, sending of portions (such as in a sacrifical Feast) will to any unpartial Reader, pass for an indication of a Religious Feast.] Truly he must be very partial, whom this will convince: All these may be found, in a civil Feast. A day of rest, from ordinary labours: An assembly at the Common Halls, or places of meeting, or places of the vulgars' recreations: A day of Feasting and gladness, etc. Only one thing the Doctor would insinuate, which certainly was not at Shuphan, [portions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as in a Sacrifical Feast.) Which Sacrifices might be only at Jerusalem: This he did, to make it seem a Religious Feast; which had it been done, would not make the Feast Religious, as was said above. 2. If it was a Religious Feast, others answer, Mordecai was a Prophet, and so directed by God to make it so, which the Doctor's Festival wants. If that Feast of Purim, had not such Divine Authority, and yet made a Religious Feast, (as the Doctor will needs have it) I dare still say, they went beyond their commission, and the Doctor shall justify my assertion; who condemns all new sorts of Worship as unlawful.  
Concerning the Institution of the Lordsday, to be Divine whether by Christ himself, or the Apostles, enough hath been said, in another place, and I shall not renew that debate at this time. And how odious the frequent comparisons (if not preferment) of his Festivals, with the Lordsday were, hath been manifested above. The Doctor cannot yet forbear, but he must either levelly the Lordsday to his Festival, or advance his Festivals into the same Chair of Estate with the Lordsday: for thus he says, 
p. 284. n. 5. He teaches his Catechumene thus from Acts 20.7. That the Lords day, was the time so early set apart to the Lords Supper, and such holy duties: and for collections, Pract. cat. 2. ed. p. 273.  [The parallel that I set betwixt the Lordsday and Christmas, 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:] Now 1. These last words spoil his parallel, that the Lordsday came immediately from the Apostles, and that as an Institution Divine; whereas his Festival came not at all from any Institution of the Apostles, but from the usage of the succeeding Church. 2. That the Lordsday had a law to found it on, the fourth Commandment for one day of seven of Divine appointment, (as was showed above) and needed only a Divine designation, which was done by Christ or his Apostles: but his Festival had no law to found it on, but rather a prohibition, if made a part of Worship. But yet the Doctor goes on; [If the Apostles usage gave to one a Divine Authority the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that, though not Divine; and the latter lawful, yea, and obligatory as well, though not in so high a degree, as the former.] Here are misadventures enough, for so few lines. 1. He now secretly waves the Apostles Institution of the Lordsday, and brings it to their usage, that so, it might be equal to his Festival; an usage only. 2. Then he would have it supposed (for he is excellent at suppositions, that will not be granted him) that the usage of the Apostles, will make any thing Divine; which is most unreasonable, unless he will again recall and establish as Divine, the old Sabbath, and other Jewish Ceremonies. 3. He hath much ado to forbear to say, [The usage of the succeeding Church, must be (Divine also) next to that, and lawful and obligatory (almost as much as that of the Apostles) as well, though not in so high a degree.] 4. If the Authority for instituting of the Lordsday, and his Festivals be the same, (as he hath asserted often) and both derived from the Apostles: then either the usages and Festivals of the succeeding Church, are Divine; or those of the Apostles are but humane and Ecclesiastical: And then, the usages of the succeeding Church, are not only lawful and obligatory, as well as those of the Apostles, but as much, and in as high a degree also; the Authority being the same. But the Doctor is engaged, and cannot fairly go back, that the Lordsday is of Apostolical Institution, and their Institution also Divine, and does not that carry in it, Divine prescrition or Law? He will help himself by a distinction, 
n. 6.284.  [If by institution be meant giving law for the observation of it, than there is no doubt, of his proposition: 
n. 7.  But 'tis possible that Institution of the day by the Apostles, may signify, that the Apostles practice in assembling weekly on the Lord's day, should have the force of an Institution or Law, with the succeeding Church, though the Apostles gave no law for it, or no such law appears from them.] Never, I think was it heard, that an Apostolical usage, was called by the name of an Apostolical Institution. Or that the Apostles practice, was ground sufficient to make an Institution or Law to the succeeding Church: Yes, (says he,) 
n. 8.  [The Apostles examples are the only way of conveying some usages to us, without any their prescript Law; and in this sense, I consent to the Diatribist, that their Institutions carry in them Divine prescription, or a Law.] But I shall not thank him for this consent, and shall enter my descent against this last proposition, [That the Apostles examples, etc.] He should have instanced in some such usages only, that carry in them a Divine Law, and have no other grounds of Scripture, to import a Divine Institution. And if such usages carry in them a Divine Law, why hath he not spoken out, and told us, that his Festivals, being derived from the Apostles, or the succeeding Church, are Divine Institutions, and not only Apostolical usages. Yet he grows confident, to demand this as granted, 
n. 9  [That whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us, through all ages of the Church, from the times of the Apostles themselves, may be acknowledged also to carry a Divine impression upon it.] He means, as well as the Lordsday: This, this is the Helena, the Doctor so contends for; to establish by Tradition, that which cannot be proved from Scripture. But I would say, 1. There are not many things so derived to us from the Apostles, through all ages, except the Lordsday and Infant Baptism, (though this latter hath not in Scripture, Apostolical practice, as the former hath. But had not both of them sufficient grounds in Scripture to infer a Divine Institution, 
Infants communicating in the Lord's Supper continued six hundred years in the Church: says, Dr. Morton, Appeal. l. 2. c. 13. s. 3.  I for my part, should not be much persuaded by a mere Apostolical usage, through many ages, from the Apostles themselves. For it's known the Apostles did frequent the Assemblies on the old Sabbath, and it was observed (as I remember) together with the Lordsday, for the four first Centuries; yet cast off at last, as not Divine. And therefore, I must profess my dislike of the Doctors proceed in his plea for Infant Baptism, merely or chief from Tradition, of Apostolical practice, and in a manner waving 
* As imperfect ways of proving it, Inf. Bapt. p. 2. n. 1, 2. and professing to lay the most weight upon Apostolical practice. p. 95: n. 39 that is, Tradition of the Church. n. 9  the Scriptures, whereon all our Divines do found it. But this was done, to bring in his beloved Easter, and Episcopacy so much doted on: For the first, how well he hath demonstrated it to be derived from the Apostles, as a Christian Festival, let the Reader judge by what hath been said above. For the other of Episcopacy, it leads into a new controversy, wherein other Learned men are engaged, to them I leave it. But I cannot pass by, another odious comparison, betwixt it, and the Lordsday, (Et si non aliqua nocuisset, etc.) He appeals my knowledge, [Episcopacy hath perfectly as much to be said for it, in every respect, as the Lordsday.] I do here profess his mistake of my knowledge; for I know no such matter, and I durst venture my skill, to prove, [It hath (if any thing at all) not so much, (much less perfectly, and in every respect) to be said for it, in the Scriptures, as the Lordsday.] But I shall not enter into a new debate.  
But he speaks of a demonstration of Easter to be derived from the Apostles, & well then he may insult over the Lord's day, if he can find a Law in Scripture for it, and none for the Lords day, n. 7. And that is found by him, in 1 Cor. 5.8. 
Let us keep the Paschal Festivity: so he rendered is, Fest. s. 31:  [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let us keep the Feast,] here's an express Law, if it be meant of Easter-day, as the Doctor would have us believe: But against this, I brought some Interpretations and Authorities, from Ancient and Modern Writers; taking it, in another sense: and I might have brought more, but that I would not fill my pages, and trouble my Reader, when the context clears it from the Doctor's gloss: If the Doctor did not believe it, why did he cite it? If he did believe it, why doth he so poorly relinguish it? For first, he slights all those Authorities, only telling us, [It were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies:] 
p. 285. n. 11 Det. of Inf. Bapt. against M. Tombs p. 17. n. 26. Yet elsewhere says The word is by circumstances applied to the Feast of Easter, (p. 244. n. 12.) as some ground in Scripture for the observation. Estius (with Beza) better hits the sense, Sicu● Judaei fermento abstinebant quamdiu Pascha celibrabant, it a & vos Christiana & perpetuum Pascha agentes, semper oporter abstinere, à fermento veteris ac p●avae conversationis. Itaque Epulemur, etc. In locum.  But I could bring him one Testimony, that he may not well slight; who thus glosses that text, [Paul himself saying, that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, the plain meaning of it being this, that the Jewish Passover being abolished, we have now the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, substituted in the stead of it.] Not, the Jewish Paschal Feast being abolished, Easter Feast is substituted instead of it; let us therefore keep the Feast, of the Lords Supper: which was the very gloss of Aquinas, by me produced. Secondly, as he slights them, so he shakes off me, with a lofty scorn; [I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal, to the judgement of the Fathers, and other such learned men.] As if no body (of his Adversaries, at least not my poor self) did converse with the Fathers and other Learned men, but himself; who yet takes upon him, Magisterially and Dictator like, to vent his own Interpretations of Scripture, quite against the Judgement of many Ancient, and most Modern learned Protestants: And whether it advantage me or no, sure it will prejudice him not a little, to bring a text to prove a Law for Easter, which his own conscience tells him, is not the sense of it, by that means to advance it above the Lordsday; when he confesses, [all that he was to prove there, was no more but this, that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them.] As for me, whether I have brought from Scripture some other places, which are more Apodictical evidences of Apostolical Institution, (which imports a Law) for the Lord's day, it is left to the Indifferent Reader to judge.  
As for Aerius his being condemned by Epiphanius, for holding Festivals unlawful, 
p. 286. n. 1.  (as also he did, Episcopacy) if he meant only (as some think he did) that it was unlawful to make Festivals parts of Worwip, or holidays, equal with the Lordsday; as he was unjustly branded for an Heretic for this opinion, so he hath in this, (as also in the matter of Episcopacy as the Doctor knows) many Orthodox learned Divines of his opinion who were never called Heretics for so doing. I shall give him the thoughts and desires of some of them; First, Bucer, (whom the Doctor delights to cite sometimes) in Matth. 12. Ferias alias (praetur diem Dominicum) optarim abrogatus universas, etc. [I could wish that every Holiday, beside the Lordsday, were abolished. The zeal which brought them in, was without all warrant of the word, and merely followed corrupt reason, viz. 
N. B.  to drive out the holidays of the Pagans, etc. Those holidays, have been so tainted with Superstitions, that I wonder that any Christian should not tremble at their very names.] The next is Oecolampadius, in Isa. 1.4. [I never heard wise man yet, who did not judge, that a great part at least of other Feasts, besides the Lord's day, should be abolished.] The last shall be the learned Zanchie, who though he speaks favourably sometimes, of some Festivals, yet thus delivers his judgement; [It is most agreeable to the first Institution and Apostolical writings, that one day only in the week, be kept holy:] in 4. Precept. 
n. 3.  Let the Doctor now go on, and call these learned men, Heretics in paraphrase, as he plainly does, it will be little for his credit.  
I shall in the next place, take the Doctor at his word; 
p. 286. n. 4.  He professes, [If I shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe Feasts are superstitious, he will think himself obliged, to do more, then deny the accusation.] That is, I suppose, he will acknowledge it, and retract his error: Now I accept the condition, and shall appeal to the Doctors own conscience, whether I have not brought fairer evidences of solid arguments and reasons, and that from his own concessions, that he is superstitious in observing his Festivals, than he hath or can bring, to prove those that neglect his Festivals to be Heretics; or if the Doctor should be partial to himself, I shall appeal to the impartial Reader, whether he be not by his word, and by strong reason obliged, to do more, then deny the accusation. The rest in this Section, as they have been often spoken to, so they are impertinent to the main business, and I pass them over.  
And now having made it appear (which was my main design) that the Institution of his Festival, was not Apostolical, and the observation of it, as of late, was attended with Superstition, and made a Will-worship, I shall not need to draw the Saw any longer, about the Antiquity of this and other Festivals. This may suffice for them all, [If they were Instituted at first, as Holidays, parts of Worship, etc. they cannot be freed from the guilt of Superstition, etc.] If only as circumstances of time, to meet for the Worship of God, as it is nothing to our dispute, and denies them to be any holier, than other days: So it was by me, from the beginning, to the end of this last Diatribe, granted lawful; (see Sect. 75.) due cautions being observed. Wherein the Doctor's ingenuity suffers not a little, that he takes no notice of these my concessions, but carries it so, as if he would have his Reader believe, I absolutely made such times unlawful.  
As for those Testimonies, of Origen, Cyprian, and chrysostom, produced (he says) in his Pract. Cat. 
p. 288. n. 11  p. 180. The first, Origen, speaks indeed of Innocents' day, in his time observed, but not a word of Christmas day. The next of Cyprian, in the third Century, if he mean it, of his Sermon de Nativitate, it's branded by many learned men as Spurious and none of his: So is that of Chrysost. also, as I could have pleaded, but that I saw no validity in his proofs of the Antiquity of the Festival, but much uncertainty, both that he tells us, it was not fixed at Antioch in his time, to such a day, (which different observation argues it not to be Apostolical) as also, that he palpably mistakes the grounds of his Demonstration; [That Zachary was high Priest, and that it was the Feast of Tabernacles,] which both were proved false. But the Doctor takes no notice of this my answer, but thinks to evade by saying, [That the question at that time, 
p. 291. n. 11  belonged not to the Festivity itself, but only to the particularity of the day, the 25. of Decemb.] For its observable that he also speaks of the Feast itself. p. 512. l. 25. [That the Feast was so speedily promulgate and ascended to so great an height, and flourished,] and the words a little before, [That it was manifest and illustrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira] with the Doctor's Comment on them, [from East to West, which sure with him signifies, all the world over,] cannot be meant of the particular day; for then there would have been no question in Chrysost. time, about it; if the day had been so manifest and illustrious all the world over: Besides Chrysost. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  himself (if it be he) tells us afore, that it was not yet ten years since this day was manifested; therefore, in the other words, he spoke of the Feast itself, not of the particular day. So likewise in those words, alluding to Gamaliels' speech, [What he spoke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (of the Gospel sure) I speak the same of this day, if it be of God, etc. not only it shall not be dissolved, but every year increase, and be more illustrious,] cannot be meant of the particular day, (which was different in divers places) but of the Festivity itself. And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Preaching, must not be meant [of it, 
n. 13.  i. e. the day certainly] as the Doctor glosses it; for the words may better bear this sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. [Because the Preaching also, i. e. of the Gospel, (of which Gamaliel spoke, not of the day,) in a few years took possession of the whole world, etc.] Which if it were taken of the Feast, or day, would prove more than the Doctor intended, that the Apostles not only observed, but instituted the Festivity also: It was not fairly done, for the Doctor in Interpretation of the words, to leave out the particle (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which there must signify (also) as spoken of another thing. However, this very Testimony of the different time, of observation of it, to me, is sufficient to prove it not of Apostolical observation, much less, Institution. But enough of this.  
The Doctor's premises being thus invalidated, 
p. 292. n. 2.  his conclusion must needs be weak and (as it is) unjust, charging those that rejected or observed not his Festivals, (both as Heretics as newly afore, as also) as Schismatics; [As an act of affected departure from the Universal Church in all ages, etc.] Which I suppose all sober and indifferent men, will look upon, (when they have read and considered what hath been said to his premises) as a most injurious caluminy: For it hath been made appear, 1. That it was no Apostolical Institution. 2. Nor Observation. 3. Nor Universally observed in all ages, and places of the Church. 4. Nor, when it was observed, was it uniformly observed, in regard of the day: In Epiphanius time, it was observed on the same day, with that they call the Epiphany, 
* The fixth of January Cassian. Collat. 10. c. 2.  or Twelfth day: by the Britain's on Midwinter day, about the Winter Solstice the 10. or 11 of Decemb. In Chrysost. time, the particular day was not fixed at Antioch, but very lately came to be known; and the Dr. himself twice hath told us, it was not universally observed all the world over, till about 400 years after Christ. But he complains of wrong, in my citation of the places, as misreported. 
p. 294. n. 8.  To which purpose he produces one of the places at large, to demonstrate what fidelity I used in citing it. Let the Reader peruse his very words, and he will acquit me from this charge, and I think, will conclude as much from him, as I say. Thus he said, [Though the particular day was not fixed at Antioch till Chrysostom's 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, etc.] Take a short Comment upon these words: [The particular day was not known at Antioch, till Chrysost. time,] in the fourth Century: Is it probable that in such an universal observation of the Apostles and Primitive Church, they should not have agreed on the day, [Yet over the West, it had been so observed.] But the West, is not over all the world, as he told us, in exposition of Chrysost. words, ad p. 291. n. 11. [It appears at least to be an Ecclesiastical constitution,] but that's short of Apostolical Institution, or Observation, which was confidently asserted above: [very early received over all the West, the greatest part of Christendom.] But that's far from the primitive times, and short of all the world of Christendom, whereof there was a considerable part in the East: [And within 400 years universally solemnised.] What is this, but what I said, in sense, that it was not universally solemnised, till abbot 400 years after Christ; that is, about the fourth Century: His own words, [within 400 years,] imports that it was not universally solemnised in the first 300 years, and that's enough for me. And what needed the Doctor to be so critical, for a word, to make a man an offender? what cause was there of that outcry, 
n. 10.  [What can be more visibly unjust? etc.] But seeing he is so riged; why did he not take notice, of those other words of Nicephorus, 
The Emperor's Edict, if it were reconcilable with the Apostles practice. p. 289. n. 3. yet never with an universal observatition of it before that time, numb. 11.  [That Justinus the Emperor, first commanded it to be kept Festival over the world.] First, over the world, that is universally, in the sixth Century: which is sufficient to clear what I said, that it was not universally observed in all ages and places; what justice was there, in this omission? I shall only ask or take the leave, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this, to make use of his words, more truly, [It seems the guilty person hath the privilege (to cry out first, and) of accusing and judging in any form of language;] which to whom it belongs, let the Reader now judge.  
And one thing more, I shall desire his umpirage in, whether the Doctor hath dealt fairly with me, in leaping over almost four leaves together, from p. 191. to the end of 197. where there were many things of near concernment to himself, and to the main debate between us. There I did, as it were, challenge him at his own weapon, his own rule of judging and resolving of controversies, in his first Quere; and by application of that rule, regulated by his own cautions, made it appear, [That he cannot prove, that in rejecting, or not observing of his Festival, we have departed from the universal Church, in all ages.] Let the Reader be pleased to review thoses pages of mine, and then give sentence. Only he makes some two or three strictures, where he thought he had some colour of advantage. First, I granted, 
p. 293. n. 6.  [What had the concordant attestation of the Churches of the Apostolical time, while they were yet alive, was Apostolical; but there are not many things so attested.] And I added, [What ever doctrine, or practice, wants such concordant universal, uniform Attestation, is not Apostolical; for they being all guided by one Spirit would all agree uniformly, in the same doctrine and practice.] Which he cavils at, but answers not. I added this Negative rule, partly as more clear and certain to us, at such a distance, from the Apostles, when it's harder to find, or judge what was Apostolical by such attestation of the Churches, than what is not Apostolical, in the want of such attestation: partly that I might turn his Canon upon himself, by showing that his Festival, hath no such concordant, universal, uniform attestation of the primitive Ancients, or Apostolical Churches. 2. I added for an instance, the concordant Attestation of the Churches, of the second and third Centuries, for the Millemium, Christ's reign on earth for a thousand years, which found no considerable (if any) opposition, for 250 years, and produced the Lord falkland's words to attest it. 
n. 7.  All he says to it, is this, [I confess, this had not formerly been produced, but it falls out, that I have elsewhere sufficiently cleared it;] and he citys, Qu. 1. s. 38. which I took notice of, and answered; but he neglects it, and tells us also of his defence of the Lord Falk. Tract of Infallibility, which I have not had the opportunity to see: But how he will take off the Lord Falk. way of arguing to the invalidating of Traditions, I profess not to divine.  
And now, after a long and tedious journey, we are drawing near to our rest: where we meet with a complaint, and a valediction. The complaint is [of my Fastidious Reflections, upon three Questions returned to the Author of the 16 Queres.] But sure the three questions were proposed, not only to that Author, but to any, [that should think fit, to resume this business into consideration, and inquire any further into this Subject.] And so to me, who was unsatisfied with his whole Tract of Festivals, and with the manner of his proposing of those three questions. And why he should call them Fastidious Reflections, I know not. The R. Doctor and men of his way, do not love, or do not use to state their questions right, (as in this so in other controversies) that so they may have the more liberty, to expatiate in ambiguities. This is evident, in all these three Diatribees, of Superstition, Will-worship, and Festivals. My hardest task hath been to find out the true state of the controversies about them; which I saw the Doctor had declined, and when it was done, did labour to obscure it; why he did so, let him now consider. It's apparent, that in all the three questions, he hath mistated them. This I shown him in each particular, and all his answer is, Fastidious Reflections. But I had more cause to complain, of fastidious neglects, and omissions. In that, first, by not stating the question aright, either first or last, he would insinuate to his facile and credulous Reader, that I am of opinion, [that all Circumstances of Worship, as time and place, etc. when established by the Church, are unlawful.] Which I intended only of uncommanded Worship; as himself hath more than once, acknowledged for me. 2. That he so fastidiously refuses to answer my four questions, truly stating the controversies betwixt us. Surely, it concerned the Doctor to have answered yea or nay, to affirm or deny them, or to show their mistakes, in the mistating of them. That he endeavours thus, [In his proposing of 4. other questions, 
p. 295. n. 12  he inserts particulars, wholly rejected by me, as that of parts of Worship, adding, as it is propounded, s. 9 (but I hope not by me so propounded) of abuse to Superstition, and Profaneness, etc. I shall be little obliged to accept them, in his terms, to begin new disputes, at this time.] But, first, that of parts of Worship, was necessarily to be inserted, into the question, both, because in circumstances of Worship, we differ not, or not so much; and also for that, what ever the Doctor rejects in words, he does indeed maintain Will worship, Vncommanded Worship, and (as hath been proved) makes his Festival a part of Worship. 2. That insertion of Superstition & profaneness, was also necessary, as being proved against some observers of his Festival, and also charged upon himself, in my third question, in particular. And sure the Reader cannot but suspect the Doctor to be guilty of this charge (of Superstition) that he silently passes it by, when ever (which was often) it was charged upon him: especially now that it is proved so fully against him. As for his valediction, it is thus. [It is not amiss, that we shake hands for a while, and commune each with his own heart in stillness. And so I hearty take my leave of him.] This parting sounds, as if the Doctor hearty desired, we might never meet again, in these contests; which I shall easily condescend unto; if this now said, satisfy not, I shall not expect it, by any thing more that can be said. But I could and do hearty wish, we might unanimously agree, in the one truth, that lies betwixt us, and give one another the right hand of fellowship, never to be disjoined more: Let the R. Doctor now commune with his own heart, in stillness, and consider whether he hath fairly, and Christianlike, carried on his debates, 
1 Tim. 6.4. Aegrotans circa quaestiones Iraen. l. 3. c. 12. 3 John 2. Tit. 1.13.  with one that dealt so fairly, and respectively with him. And I shall commune with mine own heart in stillness, how so much charity, (as is here pretended) and so much scorn and reproach, to make me vile to all his Readers, can meet and dwell together in one breast. And because I now sufficiently perceive, that he is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I shall hearty with him (as of old) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
FINIS   

Errata.  
In the absence and distance of the Author, divers Faults have escaped the Press, which the Candid Reader is desired to Correct with his Pen before he begin to read.  
PAge 3. line 14. read Pelidae. p. 4. l. 20. for how r. here. l. 23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 6. l. 17. r. inky. l. 35. r. abstruse. p. 7. l. last. f. a. r. an. p. 10. l. 11. r. level. p. 12. l. 35. r. ostendo. p. 13. l. 9 f. sad r. bad. p. 14 l 8. r. Protestant. l. 18. f. shall r. still. l. 15. mar. r. one side. p. 16. l. 4. r. answered. p. 27. l. 17. r. unprescribed. p. 28. l. 14. r. and. l. 20. deal first. p. 33. l. 19 f. his r. this. p. 34. l. 1. r. nodo. p. 37. l. 25. f. is. r. in. p. 41. l. 15. r. dilute. p. 42. l. 36. deal to the. p. 44. l. 33. r. thought. p. 46. l. 13. f. ergo, r. e.g. and so often after. p. 50. l. 35. r. worship. p. 53 l. 1. f his r. this. p. 55. l. 25. r. cross. p. 56. l. 6. r. e.g. p. 59 l. 25. f. sure r. free. p. 65. l. 1. r. patuit. l. 3. f. that r. than. p. 66. l. 14. f. or. r. on. p. 88 l. 23. f. there r. three. p. 93. l. 11. r. sanctionum. p. 112. l. 26. r. religione. l. 32. f. probat r. violate. p. 113. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 114. l. 9 r. praecepti. l. 18. r. fi qui. l. 32. put in of. p. 143. l. 11. f. moves r. waves. p. 153. l. 26. r. disparate. p. 159. l. 12. & 13. for first r. id est. ibid. l. 16. r. considered. p. 181. l. 23. deal first. p. 184. l. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 185. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 196. mar. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 200. f. time r. kin. p. 205. l. 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 208. l. 30. r. forbidding. p. 212. l. 8. r. e. g. l. 15. r. relinquish. p. 221. l. 4 f. smile r. smite. p. 222. l. last r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so twice in the next pag. p. 224 l. 9 f. more r. men. p. 225. l. 2. r. marginal. l 31. f. his r. this. p. 229. l. 26. f. his. r. this. p. 253. l. 10. r. is of. p. 254. l. last. r. detract. p. 261. l. 11. r. deviation. l. 13. r. transilire. p. 269. l. 10. r. procrustes. p. 281. l. 20. r. make. l. 25. f. them r. the. p. 289. l. 20. r. Counsels. p. 290. l. 34. r. they say. p. 291. l 19 r. neglect of p. 297. l. 11. f. as r. an. p. 302. l. 15. r. referred. p. 315. l. 20. f. third r. three. p. 320. marg. f. paenem r. penè p. 321 marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 346. l 24. r. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 362. l. 36. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 363. mar. r. doctrinas, & instituta. p. 374. l. 5. r. Lord Faulk. l. 21. r. dissent. p. 403 l. 1. r. expect better. p. 426. l 3. r. dissent. p. 428 l. 3. r. relinquish. ibid. mar. r. celebr. & Christianum. p. 429. l. 12. r. worship. l. 20. r. praeter. l. 21. r. abrogatas.   

Books Printed, and are to sold by M. Wright at the Kings-head in the Old Bailey, viz.  

MR. Shepherd's Epitome of the Law, being of excellent use, to all those that desire to be instructed in the English Laws.  
All the several Acts and Ordinances of Parliament, and his Highness the Lord Protector; From 1640. unto the year, 1657.  
The History of Divine Verities, declaing many wonderful things which God brought to pass from 29 to 38, from 38 to 1641. And what shall be from 1641 until the next coming of Christ.  
The Saint's Treasury, being sundry Sermons preached in London by the late Reverend and painful Minister of the Gospel, Jeremiah Burroughs.  
The Sermons of Mr. Henry Smith, gathered into one Volume; Whereunto is added, God's Arrow against Atheists: Printed according to his corrected Copies in his life-time. And the life of Mr. Henry Smith, By Thomas Fuller B. D. With Alphabetical Tables of the Titles, Texts, principal matters, and things therein contained; and the Effigies of the pious and Reverend Author.  
Pastorum propagnaculum, or, The Pulpits Patronage, against the force of unordained Usurpation, and Invasion, By Tho. Ball, Minister in Northampton.  
Plain Scripture-proof, for Infant's Church membership and Baptism: Being the Arguments prepared for Mr. Tombs at Bewdley, By Richard Baxter, Minister of Kederminster.  
The English Improver improved, Or, The Survey of Husbandry surveyed, By Wa. Blithe.  
Treatises and Meditations, dedicated to the Saints, and to the Excellent throughout the three Nations. By F. Rous, Esq;  
Ireland's Natural History, being a true and ample Description of its Situation, Greatness, Shape, and nature; Of its Hills, Woods, Boggs: Written by Gerard Boat, late Dr. of Physic to the State in Ireland, And now published by Samuel Hartlib, Esq;  
Seven Sermons, or the Exercises of seven Sabbath. First, The Prophet David's Arithmetic. Secondly, Peter's Repentance. Thirdly, Christ's last Supper. Fourthly, Christ's combating with Satan. Fifthly, Seaman's Cards. Sixthly, the Sinners Bath. Seventhly, the forming of Eve, with a Treatise upon the Commandments. By Lewis Thomas, Preacher of the Word of God.  
The destruction of Inbred Corruption, or, the Christians Warfare against his Bosom Enemy. By Mr. Alexander Simpson, late Minister of God's Word.  
A view of all the Laws and Statutes of this Nation, concerning the service of God, and Religion. By Will. Shepherd, Esq;  
The Mystical Marriage, or Experemental Discoveries of the Heavenly Marriage, between a Soul and her Saviour. By F. Rous, Esq;  
Church-Reformation promoted, on Matth. 18. ver. the 15, 16, 17. Also, some Animadversions upon Mr. Humphrey's second Vindication of the Sacrament: And secondly, some Animadversions upon Mr. Sanders his Antidiatribe. By D. Cawdry, Minister in Northamptonshire.  
Independency a great Schism. proved against Dr. Owen. By D. Cawdry.  
Family Reformation promoted, on Joshua, Chap. 24. ver. 15. And by short Catechisms fitted for the three fold Relations in a Family. By D. Cawdry.  
Walsingham's Manual; Or, Prudential Maxims for the Statesman, and the Courtier. Written by George Lord Digby.  
A Persuasive to Peace amongst the Sons of Peace; Or, a Treatise of Christian Peace. By Tho. Whitfield, Minister of the Gospel.  
The Righteous man's rejoicing; Or, a Treatise tending to show the Nature of true Joy: By Tho. Witfield, Minister of the Gospel.  
Diatribe Triplex; Or, a threefold Exercitation; Concerning, 1 Superstition. 2. Will-worship. 3. Christmas Festival, with the Reverend Dr. Hammond. By D. Cawdry.  
The Lightless Star; Or, Mr. John Goodwin discovered a Pelagio-Socinian; By the Examination of his Preface to his Book, entitled, Redemption redeemed. Together with an Answer to his Letter, entitled, Confidence dismounted. By Richard Resbury, Minister of Oundle in Northamptonshire.  
A Garden of Spiritual Flowers planted, By 

Ri. Ro.  
Will. Perk.  
Ri. Green.  
M. M. and Geo. Web.   Corrected and enlarged.  
A Treatise of the Holy Trinity in Unity; By Benjamin Austin, Pastor at Castle-Ashby in Northamptonshire.  
A Pensive Man's Practice, very profitable, for all persons. Wherein are contained, devout and necessary Prayers for sundry godly purposes; with requisite Persuasions before every Prayer, newly corrected and amended, by the Author J. Norden.  
A Godly Garden, out of the which most comfortable Herbs may be gathered for the health of the Wounded Conscience of all penitent Sinners.  
The Marriage-Blessing, in a Crown of Children; being the substance of a Wedding-Sermon: First, preached at Cogenhoe in Northamptonshire: And since enlarged and published by H. wiles, M. A. Minister of the Gospel.  
A Thousand notable Things of rare and excellent Virtue. By A Cuppton.  
A most comfortable and Christian Dialogue betwixt the Lord▪ and a troubled Soul. By Dr. Cowper, BB. of Galloway.  
London's Gate to the Lords Table, being a Tract concerning the Sacrament. By E. F. Published by Mr. Ed. Calamy.  
Mr. Balls Exposition; Or, a short Treatise, containing all the principles of Christian Religion.  
The Doctrine of the Bible; Or, the Rule of Discipline: briefly gathered out of the Holy Scriptures.  
The Pathway to Health, being excellent and approved Medicines of great Virtues: As also notable Potions and Drinks; with the Art of distilling and making precious Waters.  
A Light from Christ, leading unto Christ; Or, a Rich Jewel of Christian Divinity. By Jam. Bourn, Minister in Derbyshire.  
Two Treatises: the first, A plain Platform for preaching, whereby the Word of Truth may be rightly divided, and he that speaketh, speak as the Oracles of God, digested into 20 Propositions. The second is, the destruction of inbred Corruption, or an Antidote against fleshly lusts. By A. Simpson Minister of God's Word.  
The Father's Institution of his Child, directing the Conversation of his whole Life, in respect of God, and of other People, and of himself. By Michael Jermin, D.D.  
Independency further proved to be a Schism; Or a Survey of Dr. Owen's review of his Tract of Schism, with a Vindication of the Author from his unjust clamours and false aspersions. By D. Cawdry, preacher of the Word at Billing in Northamptonshire.  
The Marrow of Modern Divinity in two parts, touching both the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, with their uses and end, both in the time of the Old Testament, and in the time of the New; clearly describing the way to eternal Life by Jesus Christ. And a spiritual Exposition of the ten Commandments; Whereunto is added, the difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel. With the Commendatory Epistle of divers Divines of great esteem in the City of London.  
The Pearl of Peace and Concord, or, a Treatise of pacification betwixt the dissenting Churches of Christ. First, written in the German Language, by that Reverend and Learned Divine, Dr. Johannes Bergius, Chaplain to the most Illustrious Prince Elector of Brandenburg. And now translated into English, by Mauritius Bohemus, Minister of the Gospel.  
The Land of Promise, and the Covenant thereof explained, by certain Questions, and Propositions against the Millenaries of these times.  
A Treatise tending to show, that the just and holy God, may have a hand in the unjust actions of sinful men. By Tho. Whitfield Minister of the Gospel.  
The Charges of the Crown, Revenue of England, and Dominions of Wales, with the several Officers, Courts, Customs, Households, Houses, and Castles, Towns of War-Forts, Bulwarks, Forests, Parks, Chases, with their several Fees, and allowances, according to the ancient Establishments. By Captain Lazarus Haward.  
A Divine Tragedy lately acted; or, A Collection of sundry memorable Examples of God's Judgements upon Sabbath-breakers. By Mr. Henry Burton.   
FINIS.