SECT. 23.24.25.26. Concerning Love-Feasts.

1. THe Instances out of the ould Testament were suche, as we have now shewed them to be: Out of the new Testament first are brought in the Feasts of love, or charitie. Now concerning these Feasts, no man can certainly informe us, whoe did ap∣point them! I mervayl (sayth the Apostle, according to Erasmus his Paraphrase, on 1. Cor. 11.) Quis ritus istos i• vos invexerit: whoe brought-in these Love-Feasts? No man can tell us, what religious signification was by institu∣tion annexed unto them? Nay it cannot be shewed, where they are spoken of, without reproof? Yet the Defend. and Rejoynd. will needs have them significant humane Ceremonies, ordeyned, and used by the Apo∣stles.

2. To this, it was 1. answered by M^r. Nic. that if they were of Apostolicall, then they were of Divine insti•ution. Then whiche (sayth the Defender) he could not have uttered a more unlearned position. Nay soft (it was replied) this censure is too too Magisteriall: be∣cause to say that that which came from the Apostles, as Apostles, came from the Spirit of God, is no unlearned Position. O yes (answereth the Rejoynder) becaus Page  335the Apostles ordeyned some thinges, not as Apostles, not by immediat revelation, but by the direction and authoritie of Gods Word. In which kinde of rejoyning, I see no more learning then needs must. 1. The quaestion was of A∣postolicall institutions: the answer is of that which the A∣postles did, but not as Apostles, that is not properly Apostoli∣call. 2. That which is manifested by the Holy Ghost shining •n the Word (they are the Rejoynder his wordes) is de∣•ied to be Divine. 3. No example is, or can be brought, of a new significant Ceremonie instituted by the Apost∣•es, without immediat revelation. The allegations op∣•osed, may fill up paper, but not satisfie any reasonable Reader.

3. For removing of that Magisteriall censure of the •reat unlearnednesse of the fore-sayd Position, it was no∣•ed that some learned men, were authors of it, or parta∣•ers in it. Iunius is one: who (Cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. an. 6) •ayth, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostoli∣•all traditions, is almost imaginarie and superfluous. Wher •he Rejoynder hath nothing to catch at, but onely that •article almost. Take therfore another place of the same •unius (in his Hidelberg Theses de Traditionibus, th. 24) where without almost, he sayth fully thus: The distinction of traditions into Divine and Apostolicall is a false distinction, because such traditions are of one sort, for there be no Apostoli∣call traditions but such as are delivered from God.*

4. It was added also by the Replier that Danaeus (upon the same place) calleth it a childish distribution. True (sayth the Rejoynd.) but he meaneth by Apostolicall, thinges determined by the Apostles, by their ordinarie facultie, as Page  336 Pastors, and yet having the same authoritie with their wri∣tings: Now let the Reader mark, that the Defender his charge of unlearned rudenesse, depended on this, if Apo∣stolicall traditions may be called Divine, as being commanded of God. To talke heere of faculty, ordinary, pastors, autho∣rity equall to Scripture, &c. it is nothing else, but to bring him unto losse. Neither is, or can this limitation be justified by any other proofe then the Rej. his owne testimonie.

5. When the Repl. spake of more learned men al∣lowing of the foresaid position, and rejecting the di∣stinction made betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditi∣ons; the Rejoynder stayeth him, and confesseth that the distinction is ridiculous, in the Papists sense: yet (saith he) in another sense (not telling what) it may stand. And is the great charge of a most unlearned Position come now to this: the contrarie words in some sense may stand? Be sparing (my masters) in crying down your poore neigh∣bours, for such extreame want of learning, when you• opposite learning can scarce stand in any sense.

6. After these testimonies, the Replier inquired in∣to the Logicke of this distinction betweene Divine and Apostolicall traditions. But the Rejoynder correcteth his interpretation, and saith this distinction is taken chiefely from the different Authors, Christ, and the Apo∣stles. Be it so: yet it were not extreame rudenesse, to say that whatsoever the Apostles as the Apostles of Christ, appointed, that Christ himselfe appointed. But saith the Rejoynder, some things were appointed by Christ himselfe immediately, and others by the Apostles occasi∣onally.Page  337 Which is true: yet 1. this overthroweth that which was even now alleaged, that this distinction is chiefely taken from different Authors: because this is onely a difference of manner, as Polanus (Syntag. lib. 1. cap. 47.) doeth clearely manifest, in his large confuta∣tion of this selfe same distinction. 2. By the same or somewhat like reason, a distinction may be made, be∣twixt the word of God, and the word of the Prophets, 3. It were worth the knowing, upon what occasion these Feastes were ordained by the Apostles?

7. It is brought in by the Def. as a second answere of M_r. Nic. That these Love-feasts, were abrogated by the Apostles. From which he gathereth, that then they were not of divine institution. No say we, nor yet Apo∣stolicall. For it was onely said before, that if they were of one, they were also of the other: but not positively that they were of either. So that the Defender forgot, when he inferred: So this second answer confuteth the first.

8. The third answer of the same M^r. Nic. was (as it is reported) that these Love-feasts were not of mysticall signification, nor yet meerely Ecclesiasticall. And this the Replier undertooke to mainteyne: because no significa∣tion was added unto their nature by any institution, so farre as by any certeine evidence can be declared.

The Rejoynder opposeth, that the appropriating of their naturall signification, to the signifying of Christian love, might be in that use, by Ordination. Where, First might be, is not a proofe: and we require in an instance objected for an Argument, that it should be prooved fitting. Secondly, Every Ordination doeth not inferre mysticall signification.Page  338 I• it be ordained (as it is) that Collection of Almes, for the poore, bee used in the Church, hath it therefore a new mysticall signification put upon it above that which it would have out of the Church?

9. Ecclesiasticall the Replier denied these Feasts to have beene, or Religious, because they were used in the same manner, or to the same ende, out of the assem∣blies, that is, to the reliefe of the poore, and mainte∣nance of brotherly love. The Rejoynder, First, oppo∣seth appropriation: as if all things used in the Church, were appropriated to it! So common salutations used at Church should be appropriations. He secondly con∣cludeth from thence, that (by this reason) Eating of things offered to Idols, in the idols Temple, should not be reli∣gious. But this doeth not agree; except the meat used in Love-feasts, were first sacrificed to God: which yet hath not beene prooved: nor then, except the eating of things offered to Idols, were meerely religious; which the Christians of Corinth (ep. 1. cap. 8.) did not thinke, nor the Apostle teach. Yet might those Eatings have such a relation vnto the Idols, as might make them superstitious (even without that superstitious opinion which the De∣fender and Rejo. require unto superstition) though such a relation unto the true God, and his religion, doe not make feas•s by man invented, truely and meerely re∣ligi•us.

10. It was finally replied, that the Ordination of these feasts cannot be shewed, to have beene Apostoli∣call: and to that pu•pose P. Martyr was alleged, in 1, Cor. 11.22. The Rejoynder opposeth 1. that t•e Argume••Page  339 so much the stronger:*because then they were meerely of hu∣mane institution, and yet had Apostolicall approbation. Se∣condly, that P. Martyr confesseth the same feasts to be men∣tioned every where in the fathers, as a thing descended to them, from the Apostles, as their Spring-head.

To the first, I answer, Frst, that the Def. his Argu∣ment which was taken from the ordination of the Apo∣stles, cannot possibly be strong at all,* if these Feasts were not of Apostolicall ordination. Secondly, Apostolicall Approbation of them, hath not yet beene prooved. As for P. Martyr, his testimonie is cleare. Wee see heere how dangerous it is to adde to divine institutions, which the Corin∣thians did, setting up these feasts without warrant from the word. To P. Ma•tyr, adde Calvin, upon the same place:*We may see hence, that their manner of feasting wholly •is∣pleased the Apostles, allbeit the forementioned abuse were away. It is not well to turne a holy meeting into strange customes. As for the after-continuation of like feasts, which the Rejoynder maketh so much of; Hospinian (Histor. Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 6.) answereth fully: This was first to be found fault with in their love feasts, that they did not in simplicity keepe the institution of Christ, but added somewhat thereto. The Apostle recalled them to the first in∣stitution. But it seemes his authority was not such with them that came after, but that as the Corinthians had done, so also they would appoint many things in great zeale, I confesse: but very vnadvisedly, which also in time brought in most pesti∣lent superstitions.