Diatribe triplex, or, A threefold exercitation concerning 1. Superstition, 2. Will-worship, 3. Christmas festivall, with the reverend and learned Dr. Hammond / by Daniel Cawdry ...

OF CHRISTMAS, AND other FESTIVALS of the CHURCH.

Section 1.

IT is true indeed, that when the Apostle sayes, 1 Cor. 11.16. If any man seem to be conten∣tious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. From hence may bee made, 1. Negatively; we, or the Churches have no such custome: ergo they are contentious that would induce any new practise into the Church. 2. Affirmatively, we Apostles, and the Churches of Christ have such a custome; ergo they are contentious that oppose, or re∣ject it. But the force of the consequence is far stronger in the Negative (which is the inference of that Text) than in the Affirma∣tive, unlesse some other considerations be put in: For example, the Apostolical Church had no such custome as the Sacrifice of the Mass, praying for, or to the dead, worshiping of I∣mages, &c. ergo they are contentious and su∣perstitious who bring them into the Church: On the other side, it will not follow the Apo∣stolical Church had a custome, to observe the

Sabbath of the Jews (when they came amongst them) to circumcise, sometimes to abstain from blood, &c. to avoyd offence, and winne the Jews; ergo they that go about afterwards to lay down these, are contentious; this will no wayes be admitted. The reason is, because the Apostles afterwards repealed those Jewish customes. Two cautions therefore must be ad∣ded to make the Affirmative constringent.

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

We (we) have no such custome, nor the Churches of God.

The Gospel Churches by us planted.

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

The present Church (of Rome, suppose, or any Church, some centurie, or more of years after the Apo∣stles) hath such or such a custom; ergo we must receive it, unless we will be counted con∣tentious.

But this is thought a good infe∣rence:

The Apostolicall purest Church had a custom to observe the Lords day, the first day of the week, Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. instead of the old Sabbath; ergo that day was instituted by the Apostles, and they that reject it, or prophane it, are more then con∣tentious, even sacrilegious.

And upon these con∣siderations

fiderations the Doctor hath consulted ill to his own cause, to produce this Text for his Festivall: For hee dare not say it was insti∣tuted by the Apostles, nor can prove it was observed by the prime, and purest Church (though he oft assert it) then the inference is strong against him.

The Apostle, & prime Apostolicall Church had no such custom as the observation of Christmas; ergo they are contentious who plead for its continuance.

It matters not then what the ancient usage of the Church of England hath been; if it be∣gan not with the Apostles in the first Chur∣ches: Which, of the Feast of Christs Nativi∣tie, cannot, I think, be proved; I am sure is not performed by the learned Doctor. Nor yet that the Church of England was extant in the Apostles times; or if it were, that this custome of Christmas was from the begin∣ing of the plantation of the Gospell a∣mongst us, which yet he undertakes to ma∣nifest.

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

By one objection against, viz. the retaining of some heathen usages, in the observation of it, which are undeniable Testimonies of the An∣tiquity and un-interrupted continuance of this practise, even from the time of our first conversion: For otherwise, it is not imagi∣nable how any heathen usage should be found

adherent to it.

But this is no way constrin∣gent: For they might bee added (together with the Festival it self) some good while af∣ter the first conversion, of some part of this Island, the better to winne the rest to a liking of Christian Religion, by conforming to them in celebration of Festivals; as the like was done to winne the Jewes in observing the old Sabbath, Pentecost, &c.

The Apostles (saies the Doctor) to attract the Jews to the Christian Religion, * 1.1 did gratifie them in re∣taining many of their customs. That was for a time, but after cast them off.

And this Festivall being substituted instead of the old Saturnalia, in the same Month (as is confessed by many, * 1.2 and the Doctor himselfe) no mar∣vaile if some heathen usages stuck close to it, and could not since be gotten out: For those heathen usages continued by the ruder multi∣tude (and others too) though they have been

no part of the office of the Feast,

yet doe they fully hold out these two things;

1.

How easie a thing it is for such ill u∣sage, to creep into humane Ordinances.

2.

How hard it is, to get them out, when once got in, being ready to plead prescripti∣on.

Seeing after so long a time as fifteen, or sixteen hundred yeares continuance (as the Dr. thinks they still attend the Festival; peo∣ple being more tenacious of customs, received by the Tradition of their Fathers, * 1.3 then of the very Institutions of God.

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

It may be beleeved, either Apostolical, or very near the Apostles times.

Faine would hee have us think it was by some Apostle, if he knew how to make it out. Some affirm it was Si∣mon Zelotes, Sect. 6.

And there was some colour for the affirmation of Simon Meta∣phrastes; That St. Peter stayed in Britaine sometime, converted many, and constituted Churches, & ordained Bishops in the twelfth year of Nero's reign.

But he slurs his Au∣thor thus:

The authority of this Writer is not great.

He might have said, Nothing worth, being contradicted by so many others, and by the Doctor himself, by and by. Yet it might be near the Apostles times by some Apostolicall men; some say

rather by Jo∣seph of Arimathea;

for so. Mr. Camden re∣ports (from as ancient Records, and credible as any we have; for we have none very ancient or very credible,

That Joseph of Arima∣thea planted Christianity here coming out of France.

Belike Crescens sent him hither to convert she Britains; if he did not come,

and doe it himself: For so the Doctor would have it, and proves it out of Scripture, 2 Tim. 4.10. Crescens (sent by St. Paul was gone into Galatia; where Galatia may signifie France, as some Authors take it, and the Doctor is willing to beleeve it: For presently (though others contradict) hee takes it for granted, when he sayes,

What is so early affirmed in Scripture of the communicating of the Go∣spell to France (i. e. by Crescens) which is so near to us, removes all improbabilitie from those Histories which record the plan∣tation of the Gospel in these Islands in the Apostles times.

Its easie to beleeve, that Cre∣scens, if he were in France, might quickly step over into Engl. but the former is yet to prove: For the Doctor knows very well, that very learned men deny, that Galatia was there ta∣ken for France; but for a part of Asia, which is far enough from England. Yea they de∣monstrate it (as they think) that it was not meant of France; for which I referre him to Estius on the place, 2 Tim. 4.10. However, whether Crescens were ever in France or no, sure he was not in England to convert the Nation. Hear the Doctors own words: "This (which he had said before)

is an evidence, that neither Peter nor Paul, nor Crescens, nor any of those that usually accompanied either of those two Apostles, did bring the Christian Faith to this Island. He might have added,

Nor Joseph of Arimathea, nor Simon Ze∣lotes, upon the reason there by him given.

The Affirmation of Gildas, that this was in Tiberius's Raign, was meer Tradition, and farre from probability: For then England should be converted, within four yeares after Christs death; In the 18. of Tiberius, our Lord suffered, and Tiberius raigned but 22. in all: No Authors of any credit, lay it so high. As for Tertullian and Origen; they lived both in the third Centurie, above 200. years after Christ, And its very likely, Christi∣anity was planted here, in some parts, some time before them. But its very observable, that neither of those Antients, nor any be∣fore them, in all their writings, ever mention the Feast of the Nativity, as then in obser∣vation, though they often speake of other usages of the Church, before, and in their times. The most probable opinion is, that, though some persons, of this, as of most Na∣tions, were converted early to the Faith, yet the Nation, or any considerable part of it, was not converted till King Lucius his time, (about the yeare of Christ, 180.) the first Christian King, in the whole world, (which is a great honour to our Nation.) This was done (say Historians) in the time of Eleutherius, then Bishop of Rome, who lived towards the end of the second Centu∣rie. And his Epistle to King Lucius (if that

be Authentick, * 1.4 for the Doctor doubts it, and well he may, if hee do but remember what a learned Historian saies) doth not say, that Britain, had long ago (before Lucius his time) received the Faith, but rather, nuper, lately; and so it was in the Latine, in the Doctors Margine, but wisely left out in the English; which why it was done, let others judge. Historians say, that King Lucius, desired of Eleutherius, that he and his peo∣ple, might have some sent to baptize them; who accordingly, sent Fugatius and Damia∣nus. Now if Christianity, had been planted here from the Apostles times, or by Apostoli∣call men, its not probable, that they left no Presbyters here to baptize, but that they must send to Rome for such: which would give Ro∣manists a fairer plea, to subject England to Rome; then that of Augustine the Monke; which the Doctor disputes so much against hereafter.

§. 5. Dioclesians persecution, falls in the beginning of the fourth Century, after Christ, before which time, wee hear of Christianity planted here; and it may be, the Feast of the Nativity was set up, in some Churches, be∣fore this time; but not universally in all, "till about 400. years after Christ, (as wee shall hear the Doctor confesse, before we have done) though he pleads hard, to prove it a custome of the Church, in all ages: And this

may serve anon, to answer that which will be produced, for the Festivitie, that Diocle∣sian slew 20000 Christians assembled toge∣ther, on that day: though the Author of that report, is of no great credit.

§. 6.

The celebration of Easter, by the antient British Churches, contrary to the custome of the Western Churches will give little light,

to the maine question, concerning the first Plantation of the Gospell here, by the Apostles, &c. or the Antiquity of the Festivall, pleaded for. It may indeed argue, that England did not receive Christianity first from Rome, in Augustines time; but does not prove, that those that planted Christianity here,

were such as in the A∣postolicall times, kept their Easter after the Jewish manner.

For the Eastern Christi∣ans commonly kept it so, but not in the A∣postles times. Which the Doctor takes for granted; but is denyed him: and that upon these Reasons.

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

2. * 1.5 Socrates the Historian saies,

The A∣postles were not sollicitous, to appoint any Festivall daies at all,

then not this of Easter.

3. The difference of the observation of it, in the Eastern, * 1.6 and Western Churches, makes it evident it was not Instituted by the A∣postles: for then it would be uniformly ob∣served in all places. And as for the Authority of the succeeding Church, in such matters, we shall meet with it anon, yet this we say, at present, that the observation of Easter, hath better Antiquity, than this of Christmas, though not Apostolicall.

§. 7. But the Doctor hath found one Evi∣dence of moment;

Christmas day is called in our old Monument, Midwinter day; whence it may reasonably be concluded, that when that name was first applyed to that day, Christmas day was in the Ca∣lendar, either coincident with, or not far re∣moved, from the Winter Solstice: and wee continue to call the 24. of June, Midsomer day; halfe a year from the 25^th of Decem∣ber.

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

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

2. If the names of Midwinter day, and Mid∣sommer day, were so called here, while the Island was Heathen, they were far more anti∣ent, than Christmas Day: and then, Christ∣mas day, was rather applyed to Midwinter day, than Midwinter day, to Christmas day: but however it was, it followes not (as the Doctor would have it)

that it must be soon after our Saviours times, that this day was capable of that appellation, and con∣sequently that the day was here celebrated so early.

For it might be, a good while af∣ter, so called, when the Island was first con∣verted, which was not, (as we have dis∣coursed) till towards the end of the second Century.

3. It is confessed by the Doctor,

that Midwinter day is a fortnight sooner than our Christmas day; the solstice being about the 11. of December.

Then say I, they kept not Christmas day, on Midwinter day; for thats a fortnight sooner: So wee keep it not on the same day, with our first converts, nor yet on the day, that the Western Church now keep it, who keep it stilo novo, 10. daies before us: Which difference of observation, (as was said of Easter) argues it, not to be Apostolicall, nor soon after our Saviours daies (as the Doctor saies.) For if they had insti∣tuted such a Feast to the honour of our Sa∣viour, they would all have agreed upon the same day, in all places, as they did, in obser∣vation of the Lords day, for our Christian Sabbath.

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

First that the antiquity of it, doth no way argue, that it hath any thing of the corruptions of the Roman See, ad∣hering to it, but the contrary.

To which we have partly spoken afore; and now adde; that as the observation of Easter different∣ly from the Western Church, doth argue, that wee received not our Christianity from Rome; so the Antiquity of the observation

of Christmas, and some other Festivalls (sup∣pose in the third or fourth Century) may al∣so argue, that they have nothing of the cor∣ruption of the Roman See, (we mean, since it was judged Antichristian, about the yeare 600.) adhering to them: But yet may have too much of the Corruption of those Church∣es, wherein they were first invented; Corrup∣tion (we say) which crept into those Chur∣ches, not long after the Apostles daies. It's known to all, that read the Histories of the Church, how many Innovations and Super∣stitions were crept into the Church, long be∣fore Rome began to be Babilon; And Romish Religion, is a bundle of most of those Cor∣ruptions.

§. 9. But for the second inference,

That any such antient usage of this particular Church, if it had no other ground to stand on (as its foundation) or concurrence of all other Churches (as pillars) to sustaine it, were a very competent Authority for the continuance of such a practice in this Kingdome.

Wee shall take leave to demur a little upon this. For grant (as wee may) that this Anglicane, or British Church be ve∣ry antient, by its foundation, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for its authority, as subordinate to no Forrain Patriarch, yet we justly question, (though the Doctor doe not) whither it be

invest∣ed with such an unquestionable power to in∣stitute

what Ceremonies it please,

which may not upon good reasons, be changed and abo∣lished. It is known sufficiently, that many antient Customes, and Ceremonies (as antient perhaps as his Christmas) instituted, or ta∣ken up, by this, and the concurrence of many, if not most Churches, have "without teme∣ritie been altered, and abolished: and others may and must, when they be abused to Su∣perstition and prophaness, (as this Feast will appear to have been.) It will not be amiss, here briefly to consider, what that

un∣questionable power of this or any Church is, to constitute Ceremonies for its selfe, (as it shall judge most useful, most for edificati∣on, and most agreeable to the Analogie of faith) which consequently may not, with∣out great temerity, be changed and abolish∣ed by any.

And then, whither this Feast be a Ceremonie of that nature.

For the first,

the Authority of the Church, to constitute Ceremonies for its selfe;

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

1. What he meanes by the Church, whi∣ther 1. the Universall Church, for he often speakes of that. Sect. 12.45. &c. and char∣ges

us

with seperation and Schism, for de∣parture from the Universall Church.

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

2. We desire also to know what he means, by Ceremonies, for this is an ambiguous word, under which the Romanists do shroud their Superstitious Will-worship: Ceremonies then, are of two sorts. 1. Meere Circumstan∣ces of commanded Worship, for the more orderly and decent performance of it: Or 2. Parts of Worship, as the Iewish Ceremonies for certain, were. If the Doctor mean it, in the latter sense (as I think he does) wee must again distinguish of such Ceremonies, they are either dumbe and non-significant,

as the Church of Rome hath many, or Signi∣ficant, and that either, by Nature, or by In∣stitution: If significant by institution, then either by Divine, or Humane Institution. These Distinctions being premised, wee sup∣pose the Doctor, does not meane of the Cere∣moniall circumstances, or Adjuncts of com∣manded worship, for that will not stand him in any stead; nor does any man deny the Church a Power to order those. But he must meane it, of Ceremoniall Worship, as opposed to Moral; And that not, for Dumbe or Non-significant Ceremonies: those he dislikes, in the Church of Rome; but for Significant Ceremonies; not significant by Nature, those need no Institution; but by Institution, not Divine, (that were little lesse than a contra∣diction) but Humane Institution. Then the question is this,

Whither the Church, Uni∣versall for all Churches; or a particular Church, for her own members, have an un∣questionable Authority to institute Signi∣ficant Ceremonies, as parts of worship, which may not, upon just reasons, be changed, or abolished.

This was the Question to be pro∣ved; but is onely taken for granted; in these particulars, by the Dr.

1. That the Church whether Universall, or particular hath such a power to institute Ce∣remonies, (unlesse they be such as tend to Eu∣taxy, and Decencie, and the preservation or

furtherance of Gods commanded worship) what and how many she please,

as she shall judge most usefull, most for edification,

&c. as the Doctor saies, but goes not about to prove, but takes it as unquestionable. This we do deny, and wee thinke upon good rea∣sons, (besides the judgement of Re∣formed Churches;) If the Church be allow∣ed such a power, the mischiefes will be ma∣ny. As.

1. Its prejudicious to the simplicity of Gos∣pell-worship. 2 Cor. 11.3.

the simplicity which is in Christ.

That is, in the Gospell of Christ. * 1.7 It was spoken with respect to the false Apostles, who by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, subtle perswasive words, did corrupt both the Doctrine and Worship of the Gospell; as may appear by comparing this place, with Col. 2. The Worship of the Law, was for the most part, Ceremoniall, in externall pompe and services: But the Worship of the Gospel, is lesse ceremonious, and gaudie, and more spirituall; Joh. 4. "in spirit and truth, op∣posed to those ceremoniall, typicall, shadowes and figures of the Legall worship. The Gospel Worship is for the most part morall, praying, preaching, hearing, &c. without any thing like to that ceremoniall worship, except the observation of the Lords day, and the two Sacraments, designed and instituted by Christ himself, or by his Commission: But if the

Church have a power to institute ceremoniall Worship, she may bring us back to a Legall worship, equall with the Jewes: as the Church of Rome hath done.

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

God onely can prescribe his own worship.

Hence it was, that those Traditions of worship, in∣troduced by the false teachers, are coudem∣ned, because they were

the Doctrines and commandements of men.

Col. 2.22. which when our Divines urge against such kind of ceremoniall worship, in the Church of Rome, as Humane Institutions, they have no way to avoid it, * 1.8 but to say;

Ceremonies institu∣ted by an humane spirit, (as ours are) are there condemned, but theirs are institu∣ted by the holy Ghost joyning with their Pastors, in the Regiment of the Church,

as the Rhemists speak, on Math. 15.9. and others more. And therefore Papists may bet∣ter plead their binding power, than ours can

do. I shall adde to this, That to institute sig∣nificant ceremonies, as a part of Worship, is a superstjtious excesse, and so Wil-worship, which I prove from the Doctors own Concessions:

To put more virtue and efficacie into things, * 1.9 then either naturally, or by the Rule of Gods Word is in them, is a nimiety,

& so Supersti∣tion; but for men to institute significant cere∣monies, for edification, to teach, and instruct, &c. is to put more virtue and efficacy in them then naturally, or by the Rule of the Word, (that is, Divine Institution) God put in them; ergo. The Major is the Doctors own; the Mi∣nor is evident: They have it not by Nature; nor by divine Institution (then they needed not humane Institution) ergo, it is superstitious; and consequently the Church hath no such power.

3. Grant her but such power, and there will be no end of Ceremonies; no man can tell where she will stay, * 1.10 unlesse some bounds be prescribed in Scripture. The Doctors qualifi∣cations, "That they be few and wholsome, have no ground to rest on. For who shall judge of the number or unwholsomnes, with∣out a Rule? Not any private man, that's de∣nyed, and very reasonably. Not a particular Church; the Universall may judge otherwise. Not the Universall Church of one Age; for the next Generation may be wiser, and thinke them too few, or too many; not wholsom, or

unwholsom, and so may either multiply, or annul them. See more of this in the Discourse of Superstition, Sect. 32.33. Upon this ground grow all those, more then Jewish ceremo∣nies of the Romish Church. That of the first.

2. The Doctor takes for granted also, that the Church hath power to institute Holy daies (such as Christmas) and to make them equall with the Lords day: For of this he is speak∣ing, while he gives the Church this unque∣stionable power, but he cannot but know this is denyed by many Divines.

3. He also takes as yeelded, That there is some ancient Institution of this Church for his Christmas, from our first conversion; which must be the ground for it to stand on, and "a competent Authoritie for the con∣tinuance of such a practise in this Kingdome; but this he hath not proved.

4. Once more, he takes as granted;

That such ceremonies, or Festivals established by a Church, * 1.11 may not, without great temerity be changed, or abolished by any.

What? not by the Universall Church? not by the succeeding Church? That were to make the Laws of a particular Church, like those of the Medes and Persians, unchange∣able, and equall with the Laws of God. Or else to cut short the succeeding Church from the same priviledge of the former; and so in time the Church may lose all power to insti∣tute

New ceremonies; or else ceremonies may be multiplyed to the end of the world. And so much of the first, the Authority of the Church, to institute Ceremonies. A word of the next.

Secondly, we must enquire, whether if the Church have any power to ordain any Cere∣monies, this of Christmas, be such, as she may ordain. We have said, and say again, to insti∣tute Holy daies, and to make them parts of Geds worship, is a priviledge of God alone. If now the Doctor shall say, The Church insti∣tutes this Festival onely as a circumstance, or Adjunct of Worship commanded, it will bee little to his purpose, and makes it no more holy, than any other day, when the same wor∣ship is performed. But its evident, that in the Church of Rome, this, and other Festivals are not counted meer Ceremonies in that sense; but as parts of Divine Worship, and so obser∣ved, with greater solemnities, and more Cere∣monies than the Lords day it self; which is both superstitious and sacrilegious. And thus it hath been with some, yea many of our Pre∣latical and Cathedral men, esteemed and ob∣served, not onely as equally holy with the Lords day, but with more solemn services, with more abstinencie from labour and recreations; as we shall hear our Doctor confesse anon. We now consider what he sayes to prove the disusing of these Feasts blameable.

§. 10.

These are part of that establish∣ment which the Reformation in this King∣dom hath enacted for us by act of Parlia∣ment. To this we say;

1. The Reformation formerly made in this Kingdome, we have good cause to blesse God for; but we know it was not so full and per∣fect as the Reformers themselves could have wished, by reason of the times, new come out of the darknesse of Popery, and the tenacious∣nesse of old customs, received by tradition of their Fathers.

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

§. 11. Secondly,

This, & other Feasts of Christ, are in the Reformed, especially the Lutheran Churches, stil retained, and where they are taken away in some Churches, by some sober members wished for.

We answer to this; The Churches that retain these Feasts (especially the Lutherans) are not reputed the best Reformed Churches, nor by the Do∣ctor himself (I beleeve) thought fit to be com∣pared with England, & some other Churches in Doctrine and Worship, and so no fit presi∣dents for our Reformation. What private persons wish or say, is not much to be regard∣ded; unlesse their reasons bee constringent. However, we are not alone, nor the first in

this dis-usage of this Festivall: Some Pro∣testant Reformed Churches, are with us, and afore us. As for the Sermons given to Christmas day, by some that now disuse it (wherin

The whole body of their publick devotions,

is falsely said, now to consist, their prayers be∣ing as good, and as large as the Liturgies) it will afford him no more succour, than this; That the Authority then in being, com∣manding Vacation from work, they onely took the opportunity to preach, to prevent dis∣orders in their people, which attend such Festivities; And the Authority now in force, prohibiting, they doe forbear to preach.

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

is not an act of Division or separation, from either the particular Church of England, or from the Universall Church in all ages, especi∣ally that of the first and purest times:

Not the latter for certain; for we have proved a∣fore, the first and purest ages of the Church, did not observe it. Not the former, unlesse he will yeeld, that the Reformation of the Church of England, in former times, was a Division or separation from the Church of Rome; or the Reformation in Luthers time, was a division and separation from the Ca∣tholick Church, as Papists say it was.

§. 13.4. If Superstition and profaness may be ground sufficient to lay aside a Custome;

the complexion of the times have long since invited to the laying aside the usage of this Feast. His pretences to the contrary, are in∣sufficient.

1.

The omission of Christmas sermons and services, tends not to raze out of the minds of the ignorant sort, the slender knowledge they have of the birth of Christ, and consequent mysteries of Religion For the Gospell being read and preached on,

all the year long; they cannot but often hear of the Birth, Life, Death, Buriall, and resurrection of Christ. The Knowledge which the igno∣rant people learned by some mens Christmas Sermons, * 1.12 was slender indeed, nothing but a Superficiall (as he) Notionall, carnall knowledge of one Jesus (as that Roman De∣putie spake) that was borne at that time, to give men liberty to Feast, & be merry.

2. This cannot (as he charges it)

gra∣tifie their worldly affections, and assist A∣theism, &c.

but rather to keep it (as u∣sually they did) in all Festivall delights, (like the Revells of Bacchus) did both mote gratifie their Worldly lusts, and ten∣ded to Atheism, and profanesse.

3. The Casuists (whose great reason hee seemes to applaud) affirming, that

the ne∣cessaries of beleefe, for the vulgar sort are no more than the great Holy dayes of the year,

spake with as much, that is, as lit∣tle

reason, as their fellowes the Jesuits, who say and affirm, that

Images are the best laymens-books instead of the Scrip∣tures.

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

dispatch the opinion of any necessity of beleeving the Articles of faith;

(the Creed being still to be retained, in and with the Catechisme) for the Ministers preaching constantly of those Truths, may helpe not onely in some degree (as he) but very much, and more, than the great Holydaies of themselves can doe. And why not abundantly sufficient as it was, in the first planting of Churches, be∣fore these Festivalls were invented? We have had enough experience, that in those places (Cathedrall Cities) where those Festivalls have been most punctually and solemnly ob∣served (taking in there Chrystmas Sermons too) there have been found, lesse saving knowledge of Christ, more Superstition, and more Prophanesse, than in any Country Vil∣lages, where the Gospell hath been sinceerely preached.

§. 14.

The Impatience of sound Doctrine, and readinesse to embrace what ever is novel is not to be found in those of dee per,

sound knowledge; but in the ungrounded professors of former times, made formal Christians by external Ceremonies, & outward Pomp of ser∣vice:

But those that endeavoured to Reforme the abuses of Superstition and prophanesse, are the men onely, or chiefly, that propugne and maintain sound Doctrine; whereas those that were the greatest favourers of those Fest∣vities, some of them, either are fallen into the propagating of error, Arminianism, &c. or at least doe little appeare to maintain the truth

As for

Hospitality and charity at those times,

its observable in many strong pleaders for Christmas, that they are willing enough to abate the charge of the Feast, both then, and all the year after; yet no body hinders them from being Hospitable and Charitable.

§. 15.5.

What ever specious design was in the first institutors of this piece of Service to Jesus Christ (as after it is called) it matters not much.

Gideons design, in making a Golden Ephod, was very fair, to leave a Monument of his Victory,

as a pious pub∣lik acknowledgement of his thankfullnesse,

yet it proved a snare, to him and his house & to all Israel. Many of the Superstitions of the now Church of Rome, had no doubt a pious design, and a shew of wisdome, but the issue hath been very mischeivous: Even so, it hath happened to this Institution now in hand.

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

1. Of

Will-worship because it is not commanded in scriptures. 2. of Superstition, in observing dates, 3. Of Riot frequent in such Festi∣valls.

The two former, (he saies) he hath spoken to else where, viz.

both in his Trea∣tises of Will-worship and Superstition, and also in his practicall Catechisme:

In the two former, though something be said in generall, or in thesi, yet nothing, that I ob∣serve, in speciall, or in hypothesi, of this Festi∣vall. Indeed in his practicall Catechisme, hee hath undertaken the vindication of it, from all these three charges, but more largely, the two first there; aad here more of the last, that of Riot; we shall consider what he saies, in order.

First to free the Festivall, from the charge of Willworship, he proceeds two waies.

1.

In respect of those, who retain the u∣sage of it, they observe it in obedience to the Lawes of the Church, and so it proceeds from obedience to Superiours, a duty of the 5^th. Commandement.

This argument should not have had the first place, but the second, in a just method. The Doctor should first have proved that they that instituted the Festivall, had a lawfull power to do it; be∣fore he proved them that observe the usage, to be innocent. For may not Papists plead the same argument, for observation, of not onely their Holydaies, but of their invocati∣on

of Saints, adoration of Images, and the Masse it selfe.

They do it in obedience to the Lawes of the Church, and so it proceeds from obedience to superiours, * 1.13 a dutie of the 5^th Commandement.

But to the particulars we say many things. * 1.14 1. Did he not a little before found the Times or daies designed to publick worship, upon the equity or morality of the 4^th Commandement? Hear what he saies, of the Importance of that 4^th Commandement;

It is a designation of Time, for the speciall performing of Gods publick worship,

and a∣gain,

It is not onely lawful, but necessary to set apart some times, for Gods service,

he means by that Commandement: Then say I, if the 4^th Commandement, do necessarily re∣quire a designation of some Time, for wor∣ship (private as well as publick; for so hee resolves, in answer to the next question there) does not the same Commandement as necessa∣rily require the observation, or sanctification of that Time, but it must be reduced to the 5. Commandement? Let him remember what he saies, in his Treatise of Will-worship, Sect. 4.

If the matter of the command were before commanded by God, 'twere then no longer obedience to the Law of the Ma∣gistrate, but onely to God.

The application is easie, and I adde; must God be beholden to men, either for the designation, or observation of his due Time, by a duty from the 5^th Com∣mandement?

What if Superiours be so pro∣phane, * 1.15 as to set apart no time for Gods wor∣ship, or not to enjoine and require the obser∣vation of that Time, is every man free, to observe some, or none, at his pleasure? what if there be no Publick Worship? what if a man be and live in places where neither Time nor Publick Worship, is appointed by Su∣periours, is hee now at libertie, to take all Time, as his own? so it seemes, by this Doctrine; if men observe Times, Lords day, and others, onely as a dutie to Superiours in the 5^th Commandement.

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

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

so that it must not ordinarily be mixed with prophane and common uses,

which wee think, God onely can doe.

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

in every week, or month, or year, without Sperstition, as an act of piety,

which we suppose they cannot do, without prejudice to the 4^th Commande∣ment, and to Christian liberty; seeing the bur∣den

of Jewish Holydayes is taken off, by Christ, and we reduced to the 4^th Comman∣dement, as for one day in seaven to be holy, so for our allowance of six daies, for our own works. The result of this answer is this, that they that retain this usage of the Festival, as a day made Holy by the Church, or state are both injurious to God, in usurpation upon his prerogative, in the 4^th Commandement, and also guilty of Willworship, in holding up a Worship, not commanded by God, against the second Commandement.

2.

In respect to those who first instituted it, without command from others (in whom onely it is called Will-worship) they are free from guilt too. 1. because among the Jewes some Feasts were instituted, that of Purim, and of the Dedication, without command &c. 2. Freewill-offerings of this Nature, are to be the more, not the lesse acceptable, for being voluntary.

To this we say, in ge∣nerall, it may be Will-worship to observe what is commanded by others, as well as to insti∣tute worship, without a command; In speci∣all, to the first reason, the Feasts instituted by the Jewes, we shall speak anon, here, sect. 29. To the second, of Freewill-offerings, wee say.

1. These Holydayes of mens Institution, are not like those Freewill-offerings of the old Law, as we have shewed, upon his Trea∣tise

of Willworship, sect. 29.

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

3. Suppose the Jewes should have made more Holydaies, yearly, than God comman∣ded, would they have been accepted? should they not have heard, who required these at your hands? wee may guesse by their Fasts which they appointed; God instituted one Fast onely, once a year; upon the Expiati∣on day: They, in their captivity, appointed more, in the 5. and 7. month yearly; but what acceptance found they? see Zech. 7.5.

when yee fasted and mourned in the 5. and 7. month, even those 70. years, did yee at all fast to me, even to me?

And may not Pa∣pists, who have a Saint and an Holyday, all∣most for every day in the year, be justified by this arguing? Hath it not a great shew of wis∣dome, Piety, Devotion, to devo••e most of their time to God? Are they not their Free-wil-offerings, the more acceptable, because voluntary, and uncommanded? Let no man say, they dedicate those daies to Saints, and Invocate the Saints, &c. and that makes them abhominable: But suppose none of those, but the Holy daies be (as the Church of England expressed herself) devoted onely

to the honour of God; but yet esteemed as more holy, aad as a Worship of God; and more acceptable to God, because voluntary: even these, and that other, that its done with∣out command of God, will denominate them Will-worship and so odious to God. And so much for that.

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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Supestitum cultus, worshiping of Daemons, or soules of dead men; but its lit∣tle lesse then blasphemie, to number Christ with them, &c.

To which we say: For the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Superstition; wee have considered it in his Treatise of Supersti∣tion; and have found him granting the sense of them to be farre larger, than the Worshiping of Daemons: And wee have proved it rather to signifie any false, Superradded worship, not commanded of God, * 1.16 as Super statutum, a∣bove the Law of God: In a word, any false worship of the true God; which is exemplified in many particulars there: amongst which, this is one,

In placing the worship of God, or more holinesse, in things, times, places, &c. then God hath placed in them.

Wee shall consider what he saies to vindicate this Festivall, from it.

1.

The Birth of Christ, is a mercy of such excellent quality, that it can never be over∣valued, &c.

This is granted; But to In∣stitute

a day as Holy, without command of Christ, for an Annuall commemoration of this, is above the power of any Church, and a Superstitious presumption: and withall needlesse; considering that the Lords day, (which includes the commemoration, not onely of his Birth, but his Resurrection, and the whole works of our Redemption by him) was instituted by himself, or his Apostles, by him authorized and inspired, for this very end; & comes about once in every week. To li∣mit it therfore to one day in a year, to remember that Mercy, is not an exaltation, but a dero∣gation from it. If this were done, on his owne designed Day, wee need not fixe ano∣ther day.

2.

The exercises done upon the day, are acceptable duties any day, therefore upon this.

True, but then any day, whereon these duties are done, is as holy a Day, as Christ∣mas day: or if he think, the duties are more acceptable for the Dayes sake, or for the vo∣luntary dedication of it by men, I feare they will be so much lesse acceptable to God, and no better than Superstition.

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

1.

Because a dutie cannot be performed without time;

True but without a set, a fixed holy time, it may: Here's a fallacie, from time as a naturall and necessary adjunct, of an action, to Time, as Holy, as Worship. Which yet is not observed by the Doctor; For he, with others, seemes to hold Time in the 4^th Commandement, to be onely an Adjunct of worship, as of any other action; but we think Time in the 4^th Commande∣ment, is a part of worship: And this I think they do make it, in this present case: For they doe not onely make the duties, praying, praising, preaching, &c. a part of wor∣ship, * 1.17 (which they are every day, when they are performed) but the very Dedication, and observation of the Day it selfe, to be a voluntary oblation, a Freewill-offering, an honour and service to Christ; as wee shall hear.

2.

Abraham (saies he) rejoyced to see this day and the Angells rejoyced on the ve∣ry day, &c.

So would we, if wee knew the Day; but this does not prove, that they in∣tended to set that day apart as Holy, with∣out command from Christ: the Lords day being appointed for that end.

3. The abstaining from labours, is partly, though not onely the excesse; for it makes it ne∣cessary, as a duty of an Holy day, when God hath not made it necessary having allowed 6 daies for mens own works: & though Rest be

agreeable to holy duties, Festivities and Fast∣ing daies, of Gods command, yet then it pre∣supposes a Command of God for those Duties and Daies: Or if the Time be onely an Ad∣junct of those duties, then Rest is necessary onely naturali necessitate, not moralj; because no man can solemnly for any time wait upon God in holy duties, and his labours too. But this is necessary any day, when holy duties are performed.

4. For the 25^th. day of December to be the day of Christs birth, wee shall speake to it hereafter, ad sect. 36. Onely wee observe what he saies, upon the mistake of the day:

That the mistake will be very pardonable in those, who verily think, they are not mista∣ken; They doe perform the businesse of the day, as compleatly and substantially on a mistaken day, as on the true one: and the excuse of blamelesse ignorance, will wash away greater errours than this, if an er∣rour.

Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists Doctrine of veniall sinnes? It puts me in mind of a subterfuge of Bellarm. and others, when we object (upon their owne confessions) that there may be danger of I∣dolatry, in the Sacrament, if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body of Christ: They answer,

There is no danger of it, to one that fimply beleeves it is, and worshiping after his wonted manner?

For in such things, humane certitude is sufficient; So Jacobs lying with Leah instead of Rachell, ignorantly, was not guilty of a∣dulterie, &c. This is, (saiesacute Chamier) not to take away Idolatrie, but to stupifie the Idolater;

can any ignorance be blame∣lesse against a Law of God, or wash away an Errour without the blood of Christ? Would not Christ have revealed the very day, if he had intended the day to be kept holy, as a wor∣ship of himself? But I shall put him a case. Suppose the Jews had mistaken the day of the week for the Sabbath, or the day of the month for the Passeover, had they not sinned because they thought they were not mistaken? Had the

business been as compleatly and sub∣stantially performed, on a mistaken day, as on the true one.

When the very day was as strictly commanded as the business it self? Let him consider it.

I shall here insert the judgement of the lear∣ned Chemnitius, who, though he allow the observation of this, and other Festivals (as a Lutheran) with a reservation of Christian li∣berty, * 1.18 without necessity of obligation, &c. yet he notes no less then thirteen wayes or kinds of Superstition, in Papists observation of Holy daies. We note some of them.

1.

In placing Holinesse in the dayes, which God hath not placed in them.

2.

Esteeming the services then done, bet∣ter

and more holy, and acceptable, then if done on other dayes.

3.

Placing the worship of God on them, in ceasing from labours, and frequenting of Churches.

4.

Forbidding of labours on those daies when they hinder not the publick Wor∣ship.

5. "In the Necessity of observation.

6.

In the multitude of them. To which may be added, that

7.

They discriminate persons, to be more or lesse holy, as they observe or neglect them.

And lastly, as more grace and blessing is expected from such voluntary, uncommand∣ed observances.

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

First, for placing holiness in them equall with the Lords day, and above other dayes: It appears both by mens words and deeds. By word, in calling them Holy daies, and equall∣ing them with the Lords day, * 1.19 as both of the Churches instituted. The Doctor himself, sect. 20. calls this Festival most sacred; and sect. 24. tels us,

The day hath been observed, if not much more, certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year, &c.

And so it was,

in all Cathedrals at least, with more solemn services; with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day; on which, sports were permitted, but "no touching cards, or dice that day, * 1.20 Ibid.

Secondly, not onely the services, but the observation of the day also, was esteemed an higher piece of service than that of the Lords day; more acceptable, then commanded worship, because more voluntarie. So the Dr. often.

Thirdly, * 1.21 placing the worship of God in the observation of the day, as a voluntarie ob∣lation, and parallel with the Freewill-offer∣ings in the Law (which the Doctor takes spe∣ciall notice of, * were parts of Gods worship)

Offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ, in the service and to the honour of Christ, &c.

Sect. 28.

Fourthly, Forbidding labours on that day, with greater zeal, and severer penalties than on the Lords day: It was held and accord∣ingly censured, as more Piacular, to worke upon this day, than on the Lords day.

Fifthly, In the necessitie of the observa∣tion of it; in so much as hee was esteemed no good Christian that did not observe it.

Sixthly, It became a note of discrimination of people, as more or less Religious. Just as

the Doctor observed * 1.22 of the Hasidaei, and makes it part of their Superstition, or Will∣worship,

That they first began to add to the law of God, voluntary performances of their owne; then they made them necessary, and laid the obligation of them on others, to doe as they did, and then not being obeyed, dis∣criminated themselves from all others, as the onely obedient servants of God, and so called themselves Pharisees.

And was not this exemplified in the Institution of this Fe∣stivall? At first, after an Age or two from the Apostles, some began to set up this (and other days) as a voluntary oblation to Christ, and a pious Addition to the Lords day: o∣thers in time, made it necessary (as Socrates observed) and then laid the obligation of it up∣on others, to doe as they did; And if they were not obeyed, they discriminated themselves from such as refused, as the onely pious and Religious men of the Times. That good Fa∣ther Saint Austin was a little faulty here; if that worke was Austins:

All that ac∣knowledge themselves sonnes of the Church observe the Festivalls of the Church cited by the Doctor §. 35.

* 1.23 To which the Dr. adds

'Tis consequent to this, that they which ob∣serve them not, disclaime this sonship, and cast themselves out of this family:

Pract. Cat. And hear the Doctors owne discrimina∣tion of himselfe and his party, by the censure

of himselfe and his party, by the Censure of the Refusers.

The fastidious rejecting, or not observing the Festivalls of the Church universall, the great dayes, &c. must certainly be looked upon by every man, as an act of affected departure from the universall Church of Christ in all ages, as well as from the reformed Church of England his mother.

Sect. 45. Which Sect. 12. he had called

an Act of Division and Separation from that Church of the first and purest times:

How justly or truly, let the Reader judge, by that which hath, and shall be said. In the meane time, the Doctor hath handsomely given or taken the name of Pharisees to himselfe and his parties, as volunteeres in worship, above the law of God, and left the name of honest & mo∣dest Karaej, unto others, who dare not venture to goe beyond, or before the Law, in worship.

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

Teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men. He answers; Doctrines there, is the affirming a thing to be the pleasure and command of God, (as if I should put the Kings broad Seale, to a deed of my owne) but this is no waies chargea∣ble on those that acknowledge this an Eccle∣siasticall institution, and pretend it not to be prescribed by Christ.

I reply, 1 Teaching for Doctrines here, is not the affirming a thing to be a command of God, (or not that onely)

but is expounded by Col. 2.22.

after the commandements and doctrines of men:

That is, men out of their wisdome, prescribe, and by their authority command such and such doctrines, either as very pious and pleasing, or more acceptable to God, as a voluntary wor∣ship; not alwaies affirming them to bee the commandements of God, but holding them out as the Traditions of the Elders, as the Pharisees did. 2. Its so much more chargeable on them, (that acknowledge it an Ecclesiasti∣call Institution,) as a kind of Superstition; because those Pharisees and false Teachers, (as he saies) pleaded Gods Command, for their doctrines; for what they did, in matter of worship: But these pretend onely the Chur∣ches command, which is worse then putting the Kings seale to a deed of their owne: For it usurps the very throne of God, to appoint his worship; which is the highest Treason. Other things there are concerning this contro∣versie, which we shall take notice of hereafter, * 1.24 and now come to consider, how he can vindi∣cate this Festivall, from the Riot and excesse, commonly found there; which he acknow∣ledges,

a sin, and a greater sin in a Christian, than in a Jew, whose promises were of an earthly plenty, &c.

To which we say.

§. 17. The Jewish promises, being for the most part of earthly plenty (not onely, for they had also spirituall promises) they were

permitted (like children fed with milke and hony) a weeke of earthly joyes and pleasures; But the promises and exhibitions of them by Christ being all Spirituall to Christians; * 1.25 Spi∣rituall joyes (are as the Doctor sayes well) the "Christians eminent, if not onely portion; but these are not limited to one or twelve dayes in a year, but daily joyes, every day is a Christmas to a godly heart; "Rejoyce in the Lord alwaies, againe I say rejoyce.

§. 18. "Festivity and hospitality, (its true) are separable from riot: but very hardly; And if gluttony and drunkennesse were the prescribed worship in Heathenish Feasts; wee have found by long experience, they were the practised intertainement of this Festivall; which many yeares preaching could not re∣forme. The heathenish usages in it (almost yeelded sect. 2.) as they doe imply, that the Festivall it selfe was instituted to gratifie the Heathens, by imitation of their feasts at the same time of the yeare: so God to shew his dislike, if not his detestation of it, hath fuffe∣red these Humane inventions and institutions in his service, to be attended and celebrated, with the two extremes of true worship, Su∣perstition and Prophanesse: we shall heare a∣none, Sect. 21.

That in the ancient Church on dayes of Festivitie, men began to adorne themselves sumptuously to shew their pride, & to fare deliciously, to surfeting & drunken¦nesse.

So soone these abuses got into them; and all this while for so many hundred years, could not be gotten out by all the Fathers, & Children of the Church: The spirituall dain∣ties of a Christian, peace with God, and joy in the holy Ghost, (the quotidian Festivall) are free from these excesses.

Be not drunke with wine wherein is excesse, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to your selves in Psalmes, and Hymnes, and spirituall songs, making melody in your hearts to the Lord.

Those that have most of these, care least for earthly joyes; and they that care most for earthly joyes, (without which the Festivitie, would be thought a time of Lent, & Fasting) (its feared) least of those Spirituall dain∣ties.

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

The good cheere not to be the thing disliked in it:)

So others that keepe up, or cry up the custome of the Festivity, have taken the liberty to lay aside Hospitality and Charity, not onely at that time, but all the yeare long; which shewes it was not so much the Hospitality that they liked, as an old Custome, received by Tradition of their Fathers: which usually sticks (as Ivie to the tree) closer to carnall hearts, then any truth of Religion, or Institution o•• God:

That good Cheer and Hospitality and bet∣ter cloathes, are the attendant upon Gods Fe∣stivities, is a knowne and granted truth: But the Doctor must first prove this, to be one of them Necessary or Lawfull, and then talke of better cheer and cloaths Hospitality to friends, and Charity to the poore, have time enough to be exercised all the yeare; But to make a Misers Feast, (as they say) at Christmas, and to neglect both neighbours and poore all the yeare after, is but a poore evidence of Ho∣spitalitie or Charitie.

§. 20. If the Doctor will yeeld (as he seemes to doe)

That when the Attendant hath de∣stroyed the principall, and the External part shall devoure the inward; and when it shall appeare that the excesses and vices of men, occasioned by the Christmas cheere & sports, are more considerable to the raising of Soules, than his forementioned uses are beneficiall, &c.

That then he will beleeve there is place and season of Reformation in this particular; The time is long agoe past, when Reformati∣on should have found a place and season, not onely of the excesse aforesaid, but of the Fe∣stivitie it selfe, which hath ordinarily, if not inseperably been attended with such mischiefs without the least attempt of Reformation.

§. 21. When pride and surfeting, &c. got first into Festivities, in the Ancient Churches (as is confessed) the Fathers had they endea∣vored

the Removall of the occasion, the Feasts themselves, they had prevented many grievous sinnes, which to this day have been the conco∣mitants of such Festivities, and had saved the Reformers of latter times much worke, which now they finde by the opposition of such as hate to be reformed. As for his

Discipline to be exercised only upon the riotous outward party;

Saint Paul might have taught him a bet∣ter way of Reformation; who when the Agapae, the Feasts of Charity, (begun upon good in∣tentions, to relieve the poore, and testifie bro∣therly affections) began to be abused to surfe∣ting and drunkenesse. 1 Cor. 11. did not exer∣cise his discipline onely upon the outward Rio∣tous party, but upon those Feasts themselves, by distraction or abolition of them. Some man (perhaps the Doctor,) would have said; must the abuse of a laudable custom take away the use thereof? might not the Apostle have tryed other remedies,

to rescue a laudable custome, from an impious appendage?

as in the next section.

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

1. The eating and sporting part, that neede not be abolished, save onely in case of great and generall abuses. 2. Nor then, till the abuses are not onely so great, as decernible to out-ballance the good uses, but also so gene∣rall, that the whole Church in a manner runs

madding into those very great abuses.

So that lesser and lesser general abuses need no Re∣formation; this is pretty unntempered morter: but we shall assume; The abuses have beene long so great, that they out-ballance the good pretended, and so generall, that the whole na∣tion, (if not the whole Church) hath runne madding after them; (besides the Superstiti∣on on the Churches part, almost equall to that in the brazen serpent, of which before, and hereafter more.) Therefore its time they should be abolished, in relation to this Festivity.

§. 23. It is easily beleeved, that not onely the loosly disposed, (as he saies) will turne the Lords day, into luxury and excess; but also the superstitiously devoted to this day, who prefer it in opinion and practise, above the Lords day. These latter will not labour or play upon Christmas day,

no touching ei∣ther cards or dice that day, as sect. 24.

But its knowne two well that the Lords day, it was the ordinary practise of some great Rab∣bies, and ceremonialists, after evening prayer (if not all the afternoone) to play at cards, and so continue till night. And this is the com∣mon issue of all inventions of men, in the ser∣vice of God; as to preferre them before the Institutions of God, "The Statutes of Omri are kept: So to make bold with Gods Insti∣tutions, rather then their owne. They (for the most part) that are most strict and zealous in

pleading for, and observation of the Festi∣valls are commonly most remisse, and loose in observation of the Lords day.

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

Christmas day it self, hath been kept, if not much more, certainly as strict∣ly, as any Lords day in the year, in frequent∣ing the services of the Church, &c. in keep∣ing at home, &c. not touching either cards or dice, that day. The excesses have been on the after daies, &c.

To which we say; First, this is part of the Superstition we charge it with; that the day, hath been esteemed and ac∣counted more sacred,

most sacred, the Dr. calls it, sect. 20. and observed with more, much more, or certainly as strictly as the Lords day, any Lords day in the year;

wee think equal strictness of observation, were too much; to set their posts, cheeke by joale with Gods. But we know the ground of this, to be, that they make the Lords day, and Festivalls, to be founded on the same * 1.26 Authority, viz. of the Church; and then why (as one of them sayes) should they not have equal observation.

Secondly,

the not touching of Cards or Dice, on Christmas day;

(it seemes the Doct∣or alowes both, on the other daies) may seem to adde to their Superstition, or Hypocrisie. Their Superstition (if cards and dice be law∣full) in that they forbid them on a day, that God hath not forbidden them; which is to

make it an holy day, equall to Gods; (besides that noted in the former section, that some would touch, and touch again, Cards on the Lords day) Their Hypocrisie (if they be un∣lawfull) that pretend to worship God one day, by touch not, handle not, that they may take a dispensation or licence to offend him all the twelve daies after. For I pray, why are Cards or Dice more lawfull (I say not on the Lords day) on Stephens or Johns day, than on Christmas day? why more unholy, or un∣lawfull on Christmas day, than on the other?

Thirdly,

that the excesses and riot, are onely on other daies after the Nativity, is a poor excuse;

For the whole twelve daies are accounted part of the Festivity, and orde∣red to wait upon it. Sect. 39.

That feast consisted of all the twelve daies,

saies the learned Doctor. * 1.27 And so the Day it selfe, is guilty in part, of all the excesses of the fol∣lowing dayes; which are services fitter for the Revells of Bacchus or Saturn, or for the birthday of an Herod, than for the Festivity of a Spirituall Saviour.

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

§. 28. First he acknowledges,

it hath

not its beginning from any institution of Christ, but either of the Apostles, or the succeeding Church.

That it was not in∣stituted by the Apostles, the same arguments will conclude, which are used against their Institution of Easter, sect. 6.1. There is no mention either of Institution or observation of it in Scripture, nor any ground produced thence, to found it on. 2. Socrates the Histo¦rian saies expresly,

Neither our Saviour, * 1.28 nor the Apostles commanded it, (the Feast of Easter) to be observed; and there the scope was not (speaking of the Apostles) to settle any lawes for Festivall daies; but of a good life.

If for no Festivalls, then not for this of the Nativity. And its observable what he addes;

There are some who think all whoredome to be a thing indifferent, that do contend for Festivall daies, as for life.

It must then remain upon the succeeding Church. And there is no doubt but this is true, the succeding Church, did set up Festi∣valls; but what Church was that? not that of the Apostles age, nor that of Apostoli∣call men, that had lived some time with the Apostles: For the first Records of Fathers wee have, say not a word of any such observation. The succeeding Church, in the second or third Centurie, it seemes, began to take it up: and then Socrates addes;

They that re∣ceived such rites, from their Ancestors, af∣terwards

transmitted, them to their poste∣rity as a Law,

And here is the most likely Originall of all Festivalls. Heare what the learned Lord Faulkland saies, in a like case, to our purpose

some of great authority (mo∣ved by a good meaning) might thus deceive others, these thus deceived, might deceive others, till being generally spread, other good men, being loath to oppose them, for the same reason, for which others desired to spread them (thinking it an errour that would encrease piety) they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles, without contradiction.

To which may be added what he had said, in the end of the for∣mer page,

In those things which were be∣leeved very convenient, and yet feared that unlesse men counted them necessary, they would be backward to practise, how ea∣sie was it for them to be after taught, un∣der pain of more danger then at first they were delivered with.

But Superstitious rites were never without a shew of wisdome as the Apostle saies, Col. 2.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a faire pretence of Reason. And the Doctor gives us one here.

It being very reasonable, that those who acknowledged the receit of such a mercy from God, as was the gift of his Son, &c. should desire to celebrate the re∣membrance of it, and offer it up a voluntary oblation to Christ.

But if this was so very rea∣sonable,

why did it not seeme so to the A∣postles, and the Church of that and the next age? Or did not they acknowledge the receit of such a mercy? and were not their desires as fervent for the celebration of a Remem∣brance of ir? &c. would not Christ himselfe respect his owne service, and honour? Nor his Apostles prescribe and institute a voluntary oblation to Christ, if they had thought it so great an honour to him? Are not all Supersti∣ous inventions of men, in the worship of God, intended as voluntary oblations to him, be∣cause

they would not have their pietie re∣strained within those narrower bounds of doing nothing in the service, and to the ho∣nour of Christ, but what was distinctly pre∣scribed, and particularly instituted by him?

which is expresly against the second Comman∣dement by the Apostle, under the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Willworship. Col. 2.23. & 18. as we have said.

§. 29.

Such (saies he) was the Feast of the Dedication of the Altar, among the Jewes, not instituted by God himselfe; yet the observation of it, was approoved, and confirmed by Christs presence at that Feast, Joh. 10.23.

But there may be many mistakes in this; and not applyable to the case in hand. First, there were (which he takes notice of) three Feasts of the Dedica∣tion, 1. by Solomon, 2. by Zerubbabell at

the Repairing of the Temple. 3. by Judas Maccabaeus, for the purging of it: Now hee cannot but know, that learned men, are divi∣ded, of which its here meant: Some of the first, * 1.29 some of the second; though its probable it was not meant of either of them; both be∣cause, we read not, that those two were ever observed above once, and also because of the time of the observation specified, it was in winter: which the other were not. 2. But grant it of the last; yet there are reasons to think, that it was not a Religious Festivall, but civill, as the Feast of Purim seemes to be, Esth. 9.21.22.

A day of feasting and joy, and sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.

And so its said of the Feast of Dedication, 1 Maccab. 4.59.

They or∣dering it should be kept yearly, with mirth and gladnesse:

For though it be said, ver. 56. they offered burnt offerings; yet that was ver. 53. according to the Law; and so was worship commanded. 3. If it yet be said, it was a Religious Festivall, and so observed, even the day it self; then it may fairly be sug∣gested,

That they went beyond their com∣mission, in making this feast Annuall and perpetuall, which neither Solomon, nor Zerubbabell did theirs, for ought we read.

And so those were kept as extraordinary daies of thanksgiving for one turn, onely which we grant lawfull, to be done by the Superiour

powers, as also we do, extraordinary daies of Humiliation: which the Doctor also ap∣proves; pract. Catech. Append. p. 304.4. Ano∣ther mistake is this;

that that Feast was ap∣proved & confirmed by Christs presence at it.

The t xt produced saies no such thing, but one∣ly thus,

It was at Jerusalem, (marke that, not at the Temple) not elsewhere the Feast of the Dedication; and ver. 22. Jesus walked in the Temple:

So hee did other daies, any day, when no Feast was: Hee was present in the Temple, not at the Feast; for ought appeares, which it seemes, was kept with joy and Feasting in the Citie.

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

Religious service, and a voluntary oblation to the ho∣nour of Christ,

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

§. 31. These Instances then are both im∣pertinent, what hath he

more pertinent to the present purpose?

Why, that which I still expected to meet with; is his strongest plea: for this he saies,

It must be remem∣bred,

that the weekly Fast of the Resur∣rection (the Lords day) was not instituted by Christ, or God himselfe; but by the Apostles of Christ: and that the mentions of the first day of the week, are no prescrip∣tions or Law, for the observing of it, &c.

Before we hear more, lets consider this: For first, there want not learned men, who thinke that Christ himselfe did institute or designe the day. But secondly, if the Apostles did in∣stitute it (as the Doctor grants) thats more than some of his Colleagues will grant, (and thank him for it) and more than he dare pe∣remptorily say, of his Christmas day: Hee speaks it doubtingly,

either of the Apostles, or succeeding Church.

Secondly, if the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ, do not their Institutions carry in them, a Di∣vine prescription or Law, for the observation of it? And if they instituted the first day of the week, to be the Lords day, or Christian Sabbath, do not at least some mentions of the first day, of the week, imply their Instituti∣on of that day to be holy, and require with∣all the observation of it? as 1 Cor. 16.2. in the judgement of some, no great Favourers of the Lords day Sabbath? Lets now hear what hee saies more.

If any thing of that nature (as a law) be there sought for, it will rather appear to belong to the Annuall, than weekly Feasts, So 1 Cor. 5.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 let us

keep the paschall Festivity, is annexed im∣mediately, to Christ our Passeover, &c. and to that also, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Lords day, Rev. 1.10. is thought to belong.

To which I say.

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

Because on Festivall daies, there were solemn Feasts of slesh observed; * 1.30 hence this word is used, for to celebrate festum & solemne epulum, asolemn Feast or Banquet; by allusion to the typicall Paschall Feast.

Before him the learned Aquinas, * 1.31 could not find Easter here.

Epmlemur, scilicet man∣ducantes Christum, &c. let us feast, viz. eat∣ing Christ, not onely Sacramentally but spi∣ritually.

Before them Saint Chrysostom, was not so quick sighted to find a Law for Easter here, but an every day Holyday, for so he saies.

The Apostle saying, let us keep the Feast, he said not, because the pasch or Easter or Pentecost was present, but shewing that all or every time, is a Festivall season to Christians. And presently after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: every day is a Pestivall to us: yea all our life.

Not much unlike doth

Saint Ambrose interpret the word,

Hoc est laetitiam habentes renovationis, facta vetera fugiamus, That is, having the glad∣nesse of renovation, let us fly our old works,

&c. * 1.32 I adde but one thing more; The learned Bishop of Winchester, who pleads as strong∣ly for this Easter Feast, as any, yet founds it not upon this text, though he had occasion to name it, but upon the Custome of the Church.

2. It is proved above, out of Socrates, that the Apostles instituted not any Holydaies (ex∣cept the Lords day) therefore nor this of Easter.

3. That the Lords day Rev. 1.10. should belong to the Easter day, is the fancie of some, who of late have laboured to depresse the honour of the Lords day; contrary there∣in to all the antient and modern writers. In a word, (as was said afore) the difference in observation of it, in the severall Churches, argues it not to be Apostolical. Which diffe∣rence the Doctor notes in this Section.

§. 32. Its true that Aerius is by Epiphanius branded as an Heretick, for some opinions, justly, if they be truly charged upon him: But it is well known to the learned, that all is not Heresie, that Epiphanius calls so: Nor all Aerius opinions justly censured as Heretical; * 1.33 as the Doctor, or any may see, if he consult with Osiander, the Epitomizer of the Centu∣riators.

And he is found, in some of those o∣pinions to be seconded by divers antient Fa∣thers, as is asserted by some of our learned Modern Divines, if it were not unnecessarie here to manifest.

2. As for the Festivities of the Martyrs, it is granted, they began betimes (as Super∣stition ever attends Religion and Devotion) which though they were intended for good ends, yet (as things of mens Inventions do) they produced in time, much Superstition, not onely in multiplication of Holydaies, but in opinion of more Holinesse, more * 1.34 efficacie of prayers on such daies, and at last, flat Ido∣latry, both in dedication of the daies to those Saints and Martyrs, and to Invocation, and praying to them: Which at first were onely times of commemoration, of their vitues and encouragements of Imitation of them. And this might suffice for answer to the next section.

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

Where will be no reason to doubt, that so the daies of the death or Martyrdome of the Apostles themselves, were formerly solem∣nized by them; and that this early, &c.

he presumes too much upon his own reason; not able, it seemes, to produce any Testimonies, of those or former times, for such observati∣ons; which I the rather take notice of, be∣cause

the Doctor uses not to wave any Testi∣monie, that doth but look that way; and all∣so because I observe, that the learned Chemni∣tius, a man of vast reading, having reckoned up the Festivalls, * 1.35 that were in observation, in the first four hundred years, can find none, by name, of any Apostle; but referres them to the time of Carolus Magnus, Anno 800. or at least to Constantines time; which was in the begining of 400.

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

that Justinus the Emperour commanded it to be kept Festival over the World.

Shakes the Antiquity of it; For if the Apostles had instituted it, it would have had an universall observation, over the world, long before Justinus his daies, ho li∣ved in the 6. Century. As for Dioclesians burn∣ing so many thousand on Christmas day, wee have spoken before; and onely now note, that Nicephorus saies, it was done by Maximinus; However this was, in the beginning of the 4^th Centurie; as was said above.

§. 36. Though it be not much Materiall to

the Festivities observation, whither it was the 25. day of December, as now of late, * 1.36 it was kept, or some other day, (as he elsewhere saies) yet the proofes for that day, are not very cogent. Its probable they that first instituted the day, did fixe it, by some Tradition, on that day. Some, yea many things there are, that may make us doubt of the truth of our Calculation.

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

Christmas day is in our old Monuments, called Midwinter day, which is the day of the Winter Solstice,

confessed by him to be a fortnight distant, from the 25. of Decem∣ber.

Secondly, it hath been the opinion of many, if not most of our learned Divines, that our Lord dyed, when he was about 33. and halfe years of age, (or near unto 34. as the Doctor saies) Now the death of Christ was at the time of the Passeover, about our March, * 1.37 or Aprill; If now Christ died at 33. and an half; then count 6. months backward, when he was just 33. years old, and that will fall a∣bout September: If at 34. compleat, then hee was born and dyed just about the same time, that is about Aprill: Thats another ground of scruple, in our Calculation.

Thirdly, the Arabick Codex of the Coun∣sells, is of younger date, not able to justi∣fie

the Canons called Apostolicall, to be A∣postolicall.

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

If it were framed by those that succeeded the Apostles, &c. so it is probable they were first intitled, Canons of Apostolicall men: Or if it were one of those which in succeeding times were added and put into that volum, &c.

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

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

A speci∣all Holyday (imitating the custome of the Jewes, which kept the first and last daies of every Feast, daies of solemn assembly)

so speciall and solemn, that it outwent the Lords day, as Christmas also did; which is usuall, for mens inventions to out do the Insti∣tutions of God.

§. 40. But there is something that weakens the Antiquity of this Twelfe day Festivall, viz. * 1.38 that it is not certain.

1. whence it had the name of the Epipha∣nie: whither from the appearing of the Star

to the wisemen, or from the descending of the Holy Ghost upon Christ, at his Baptisme; or (as the Doctor himself addes, Sect. 41.) "From the first appearing of Christ in the World.

2. It is made more uncertain, because Epi∣phanius affirms,

that many orthodox Christians, in Aegipt did keep the Feast of the Nativitie on that Twelfe day.

And the Doctor saies, hee is more inclined to the last of the three conjectures, that is,

that Epi∣phania, signifies the day, when Christ was born in the flesh,

as Epiphanius had said, which though the Doctor say, that it is con∣futed by Saint Hierome; yet is enough to shake the Authority, of the Institution, that certainly it is not Apostolicall, nor by the Primitive purest Churches, when the name was not agreed on, in Epiphanius time; (in the fourth Centurie) nor the day it selfe distinguished, but Christmas day by some, was observed on the same day. Whither the Mag•• came to Christ, the next twelfe day after his Birth, or that day twelvemonth, I shall not dispute; onely I shall tell the Doctor, that Cheronicus is of opinion, that they came the twelfth day after Christs Birth, and seem to have reason for it; The 41, 42, 43. * 1.39 Sections may receive their solution, from what is all-ready said.

§. 44. But now hee will put it beyond all

question, by the testimony of Chrysostome, and other Antients;

out of the censuall Ta∣bles of Augustus, the Registers of such as were enrolled at the Taxe, Luc. 2.1. toge∣ther with the place and day of the month and year when it was done.

This indeed would end the question concerning the day of Christs Birth, but makes yet nothing to the maine question; That Christmas (so call∣ed) is of Apostolicall Institution; or of the next age. Lets hear what may be said to those Testimonies. To begin with the most anti∣ent, Justin Martyr he brings the Rolls to e∣vidence the place of Christs Birth, but saies not a word of the observation of the Festivi∣tie of his Birthday, in his time. The like may be said for Tertullian; He alledges the Rolls, fidelissimum testem Dominicae Nativitatis: (marke that) a most faithfull witnesse of the Lords Nativity, (which Marcion denyed) not Natalis Diei testem, a witnesse of the Ob∣servation of his Birthday, as Festivall in his time; or on the 25. of December: for he makes no mention of that Festivall at all, which is probable he would, if any such Custome had been then in Being. The whole weight then of the businesse must lye upon Saint Chry∣sostom, who in his Hom. of the Nativity; saies,

We have received the day from those that accurately knew these things, and which dwell in the City of Rome.

Suppose

we shotld grant this Testimonie to be true and Authentick, for the day of our Lords Birth; (which yet is doubtfull, by what hath been said before, and shall anone) yet this will not prove that Antiquity of the Festivall, which the Doctor would thence conclude. For besides, that Chrysostome lived in the fourth Centurie, when the Tradition was grown to a Law, (as Socrates said) himselfe gives us occasion of scruple, by the weakness of his proofs. He tells us of a threefold demon∣stration, that the Day which they celebrated, * 1.40 was in the month of December, called by the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as the month wherein Christ was conceived, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Wee shall consider his Demonstrations in or∣der.

1. The first is this,

That this Festivall was so suddenly published every where, and that it arose and flourished to such an height.

But does the Father at all, go about to prove this? That which he saies is,

That the preaching of the Gospell (so I think he meanes) or of Christ, by tent makers, fish∣ermen, and vulgar men, took the whole World, in few yeares, by the power of him that was preached.

But he saies not a word, when the Feast of the Nativity first began to be celebrated.

2. His second Demonstration is from the great Taxing of the World by Augustus,

when all went to be taxed, into his own Ci∣ty: At which time Joseph and Mary going up to Bethlem, Christ was born, Luk. 2.6.7. Now the time of this Tax, was recorded in the Rolls of Augustus at Rome; and the good Father, was certified from thence, by some that dwell there, that it was in such a Month, and such a year. All this may be granted; but this proves onely the truth and time of Christs birth; but not the observati∣on of the day as Festivall: Yes, may some say, with the Doctor, for the Father addes,

Those that lived there, did observe that very day (that we doe) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from their Ancestors, and from antient Traditions (as the Doctor renders the words) and sent us the know∣ledge of it.

This might well be, if we consi∣der the time and Age that both they and this Father lived in, which was (as we said) in the fourth Centurie: an 100. or 200. yeares before, might be so stiled, an antient Tradition.

3. His last Demonstration, is from the con∣sideration of the time of Johns conception, which was, 6. Months, before the conception of his and our Lord; as the Scripture saies ex∣presly, Luk. 1.26. Now the ground of all his large discourse, is upon this Supposition, that the message of Johns conception came to Zacharias, in the month of September; from whence the sixth month, when the Angell

came to Mary, and she conceived her Sonne, was March, and as we calculate it, the 25. day. From thence count 9. months more, and it falls to be just our December, and the 25^th day thereof. But how proves the Father, the first, that Zacharie was officiating in the Temple, in our month of December? his dis∣course is very large: The sum of all comes to this: Hee takes for granted, these two things.

First, that Zacharie, was then high Priest, and secondly, That the time was, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the day of expiation, on the 7^th month, and 10^th day of the month, at which time onely the high Priest and he alone went into the most holy place. Now (saies the Father) Zacharie was at this time gone alone into the most holy place, and all the people were without praying, Luk. 1.9, 10. This he proves, because its said, when the Angel came to him, he saw him standing on the right side of the Altar of incense; which Zacharies lot was to burn, at that time: The Altar of burnt offerings (saies he) was without, and the Altar of incense within the Vail. But now, if learned men be not mista∣ken, this is a great mistake in this Father. * 1.41 For first, the Author of the Notes upon the fift Tome of Chrysostome; (Sir Henry Savill, I suppose) makes this observation upon the Fathers words, pag. 515. l. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

From the premises of Chrysostome,

no conclusion can be collected, unlesse first it be proved, that Zacharie, was the high Priest, which yet was not true: allthough this Fa∣ther, nourisheth his same opinion, in other places, by what probable argument at least, led to it, I know not.

So farre he.

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

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

3. The Altar of Incense was not within the Vaile, but without, and there Zacharie was ready at least to burne Incense, when the Angell stood on the right side of it. The High Priest did offer his Incense indeed within the Vail, but that was in a Censer, not upon the Altar; as is said, Levit. 16.12. but he onely took coales from the Altar of the burnt offering; and Incense from the Altar of of Incense, and put them both in a Censer, and offered it within the Vail: whereas the other Priests offered it daily, without the Vaile. Now the Supposition of the Father, being ungrounded, what he builds upon it, will be farre from a demonstration. But if all

his proofes were good, that the month was December, and the day, the 25. of that month, whereon Christ was born; wee aske again, what is this to prove the Antiquity of the Festivall of the Nativitie? Chrysostome himself hath much shaken the Authority of the Church, Universall, in constituting it, and celebrating of it, in all ages: For, it seems, it was very questionable in his time; whither it was a new or an antient custom: Heare his own words, * 1.42 in the Homilie where he so ear∣nestly pleads for it.

I know very well, that many are even now doubtfull amongst them∣selves, concerning this day; some accusing, some defending: And there is much talke every where about this day, some charging it to be new, and of late Originall, and now brought in: Other apologizing for it, that it is antient, and from the beginning, fa∣mous and manifest in many places; to those that inhabit Thracia, &c.

So that it seems, to be a Tradition indeed of some standing, and observed in many places, but not univer∣sally, in Chrysostomes time, in the fourth Cen∣turie: Yea questioned by many; and so no universall, much lesse, an Apostolicall In∣stitution; which all this while, the Doctor hath endeavoured to make the World be∣leeve.

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

injurious: That,

the fastidious rejecting, or not observing the Festivalls of the Church Universall, the great daies, &c. must cer∣tainly be looked upon, by every man, as an act of affected departure, from the Univer∣sall Church in all ages; and not onely from the reformed Church of England.

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

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

2. There was a time, when the Universall Church of some, yea many ages, and this of England among them (I meane during the time of Antichrists revelling in all Church∣es) observed may more Holydaies than the reformed Church of England did observe, or he pleads for. Will he say the Church of Eng∣land, and himself are guilty of an affected de∣parture from the Universall Church? If the Church of England at her first Reformation saw cause, and had Power to throw away some; may not the same Church of England, having the same power, upon just the same or like reasons, cast off the rest? If he say; Hee speaks it of the Universall Church of all A∣ges, and especially of the first age, wee shalll

joyne issue with him therein; and and say, If he can prove (which I am confident he can∣not) that in rejecting, or not observing, these Festivalls, wee have departed from the Universall Church in all ages; wee shall be content to let his censure fall upon us; till then, we are safe. And for a closure of the whole matter; we shall take into considerati∣on his Rule, prescribed in his first Quaerie, a∣bour Resolving controversies, and be judged by it. It is this. * 1.43

What ever hath the con∣cordant attestation of the Christian Church of the first ages (the Scripture remaining obscure, or silent in the matter) that it, was the Doctrine or practise Apostolicall, there remains not to any that now lives, any ima∣ginable ground of sober or prudent doubting, or questioning the truth of it.

This resolu∣tion, and Case, the Doctor beginns with, and intends it as a Rule, applicable to all the fol∣lowing cases;

against Socinians, and other Hereticks and Schismaticks, Sect. 40.

Hee means, (we thank him) those that reject this Festivall, as Sect. 12. and 45. of this Quaerie, appears: But is this Rule universally true? Are there no cautions, nor exceptions? yes, three at least.

1. It must be in cases,

where the Scrip∣ture is either obscure or silent in the mat∣ter.

2.

That it be not extended any further,

than to the primitive Antients.

3.

And again to an accordance of those Testimonies (without any considerable op∣position) that this or that was delivered from the Apostles.

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

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

the Church of the first ages?

If he take it inclusively, to take in the Churches of the Apostolicall time, while they were yet alive, wee should not stick to grant his rule to be good.

What ever doctrine or practise hath the concor∣dant attestation of that Church,

it was Apostolicall. The Negative whereof being a surer Rule to jvdge by;

What ever doctrine or practise wants such concordant, univer∣sall, uniform Attestation, is not Apostolical.

For they being all guided, by on Spirit, would all agree, uniformly, in the same Doctrine, or practice. But there are not many things so attested by the Church of that age. On the other side, if he meane it exclusively of that age, and to include onely the after a∣ges, it will prove a Crooked Rule; Many Doctrines, and practises being taken up, which were not Apostolicall, but meer Inventions of men; which like a Gangreen, soon over∣spead the face of the Church: And by the

different Timing, and observation of them, proved by the best Divines not to be Aposto∣licall.

Secondly, for

the concordant attestation, of the primitive Antients, of the second, or third Age, without considerable oppositi∣on.

(which is one of the Cautions) that this was delivered from the Apostles; I shall put in a just exception, in the words of the learned and honoured Lord Falkland; in his discourse,

Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome;

who plead, the universall Tradi∣tion of the Church, for their Religion, (as the Doctor does, for his Christmas.) Thus he writes:

If the Relation of one Pappias could cozen so farre, all the prime Doctors of the Church Christian, into a beliefe of the celebration, of a thousand years after the Resurrection, so as, that not one of those two first ages, oppose it, (marke that) till Dionysius Alexandrinus, who lived at least 250. yeares after Christ: nay, if those first men, did not onely believe it, as proba∣ble, but Justin Martyr, saith, he holds it, and so do all that are in all parts, Orthodox Christians. Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition, and relates the very words that Christ used, when he taught this; which is plainer than any other Tradition, is proved, or said to be, out of Antiquity, by them (of

Rome) If I say, these could be so deceived, why might not other of the Antients, as well be deceived, in other points? And then what certainty shall the learned have (when after much labour, they thinke they can make it appear, that the Antients thought any thing a Tradition) that indeed it was so,

&c. The Doctors wisdome can easily ap∣ply this to the case in hand. And I perceive he was aware of such an objection, and there∣fore labours to prevent it, by saying,

That Justin Martyr, * 1.44 the prime assertor of it (thats a mistake, for he and Irenaeus also, had it from Pappias, who was their Senior) con∣fesses, other Christians, of pure and pious intentions, to he otherwise minded.

But for that, let him answer his friend the Lord Falk∣land, * 1.45 who saies,

That Justin Martyr saies, that in his time, all (all) Orthodox Christians held it, and joynes the opposers, with them who denyed the resurrection, and esteems them among the Christians, like the Saduces among the Jewes: and again saies, It found no resistance, in above two Ages, by any one known, and esteemed person.

And what now is become of the Doctors Rule?

Thirdly, the Rule applyed to the case in hand, will prove, (more then the Doctor in∣tended) a light to discover his Christmas far

from an universall, Apostolicall usage; For.

1. The Rule must hold, onely in things, "wherein the Scripture is obscure, or silent: But for Institution of Feasts, (particularly this of Christmas) the Scripture is neither obscure nor silent. For the Scripture is cleare, and speaks aloud against it; both in the Law, the fourth Commandement, which requires peremptorily, but one of seaven for God, al∣lowing six for mens occasions; and also in the Gospell, which clearly speaks, against obser∣vation of daies (except the Lords day, the the Christian Sabbath) whither Jewish, Hea∣thenish, or Christian. Festivalls of old, were part of the Ceremoniall yoke, upon the Jewes, and therefore to give the Church a power, to institute Holydaies, is to reduce the yoke a∣gain.

2. They have not the concordant Testimo∣nie of the Primitive Antients; neither of the Apostles themselves, nor of those that lived, in the same age with them, as of Ignatius: nor in the second Centurie, of Pappias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, &c. which may the better be believed, because the Doctor brings not one instance of any of those, so much as men∣tioning this Festivall, except out of the Con∣stitutions of the Apostles, falsely so called; which Isodorus (by Gratians report of him,

Dist. 16.) saies,

Where known to be cor∣rupted by Hereticks, under the name of the Apostles,

This Chemnitius further proves, because the Fathers of the first Ages, doe not so much as intimate any such usage in their times.

No mention there is, amongst the most antient, of celebrating the Feast of the Nativitie, till Basills, Nazianzenes, and Chrysostomes time,

who lived not till the fourth Centurie at least: They say indeed, it was in practise, in some places, before their time; but that might be, some 100. more or lesse years, and yet be farre from the first ages of the Church, or being Univer∣sall.

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

without any considerable opposition.

But this, his Christmas found in the fourth Centurie, as we heard, Sect. 44. In Chrysostomes time, there was a consi∣derable opposition;

Many being doubtfull, many charging the Festivity, with novelty, and as of late brought in:

For a conclusion, then of all; the Doctors Censure is too harsh, and the Character too hard, that is set upon the refusing of it.

That it hath nothing but the Novelty and contempt of Antiqui∣ty to recommend it unto any.

We shall onely put him in mind of two places, in his owne writings. The one here, at Sect. 35. the other

Testimony of Nicephorus;

That Justinus the Emperor first commanded it to be kept Festivall over the world.

Then say I, it was not an Universall usage in all ages of the Church (which the Doctor hath so long pleaded for) for Justinus lived in the sixt Century: I know what hee answers to it:

That belonging onely to the edict of the Em∣perour for the universall observation, doth no way prejudge the Churches, whither A∣postolicall, or Primitive Institution of it.

Its enough to prejudge the universall obser∣vation of it, in all Ages; and consequently it is not Apostolicall.

The other place is in his Practicall Cate∣chisme, where he confesses, * 1.46

It was not so∣lemnized universally, till about 400. yeares after Christ.

How often hath he charged us, with departure from the Universall Church, in rejecting, and not observing the Festivities of the Universall Church: &c. Sect. 12. and in that Sect. 45. I hope, upon second thoughts, hee will be more mode∣rate in his Censures; and find that his rash zeale for the Authority of the Church his Mo∣ther, and Tradition of the Antients his Fathers, hath carried him beyond the bounds of Reason, and Religion.

§. 46. The remaining part of the Doctors discourse, is spent in answering 16. Quaries,

propounded by another; But most of what hee hath said, may be taken away, by what hath above beene answered: I shall not put my sickle into another mans Corn; but leave it to the Author of them, or some friend of his, to vindicate them.

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

as a shorter way, to question and debate the truth, or supposed certainty of some of his own principles:

For an essay, this

§. 75.

Whither it be not lawfull for the Church, either nationall, of one, or Uni∣versall of all parts of Christendome, especially of that age nearest the Apostles, of the first and purest time, to take upon it to institute one or more daies, upon any speciall occasion of some eminent mercy of Gods, toward the whole Church, to be used yearly, in acts of Christian piety and chari∣ty, * 1.47 by all the Children of that Church, and to expect obedience from them.

But un∣der favour, this is not the question now be∣tween us; For not onely the Lutherans, but even the most rigid Calvinists, and Noncon∣formists (as they were called) do grant,

That the Church, or rather the State, hath

power, to set apart any day to the acts of piety, and charity, not onely upon ex∣traordinary eminent mercies, but upon ordinary occasions,

provided 1. They be not too many, for number; nor 2. Im∣posed as necessary, to the prejudice of Christian libertie. Nor 3. made parts of the worship of God: and other like cau∣tions and conditions, by them prescri∣bed: And if the Superiour Powers shall appoint such daies, so qualified, this may secure both those that institute them, and those that observe them, from any crime of Superstition. Its more then pro∣bable, that they who first appointed those daies, in memory of the Martyrs, in their particular Churches, intended no more, but on such a day yearly, to com∣memorate, the Faith and constancie of those holy Sufferers, as with thanks to God, for his Graces in them, so to the Incouragement of other Christians, to imitate their virtues; But after Ages soon grew Superstitions, in their Number, in their use and end:

Dedicating daies to to Saints; Invocating them in their prayers; Making the observation of them necessary: The daies themselves holy, holyer than other daies, than the Lords day: placing the worship of God

in them; expecting more acceptance, more blessing from the services of those daies, as a voluntary worship.

These a∣buses were foreseen by the Reformed Churches, and thereupon, either the Daies were rejected altogether, by some; or cautioned against by others; especially, by this Church of England; as all doe know. But when this last generation of misdevout men, began to exceed in the honour, estimation, and observance of those remaining Festivalls, especially this of Christmas; equalling them with, if not preferring them above the Lords day, (as was said before) &c. then those that were conscientious, and tender of the Worship of God, beganne to oppose such inchroachments upon it, who formerly did observe the daies; and others, that thought they had Power in their hands, did lay them aside, upon these reasons. It were too long, to instance the particular Superstitions, not onely of the vulgar people, but even of many Di∣vines, discovered in their Practises and Discourses against the Lords day, and for the Holydaies: None that I know, or have met with, have manifested more waies of being Superstitious, in this Sub∣ject of Holydaies, than the Doctor in

this discourse of Festivalls; as hath beene made appeare, at the end of the six∣teenth Section; to which I referre the Reader, and proceede to his second question.

§. 77.

Whither such an antient In∣stitution of the Church of Christ, by name, the anniversarie feast of Christs birth, though it be not affirmed to be com∣manded by Christ, or instituted by the Apostles, or (in it selfe considered, without respect to the Institution) abso∣lutely necessary to the being of a Church; yet being thus (more than lawfull) pious in it selfe; proper in respect of the ground, primitively Catholick, (if not Apostolick) in respect of the Institu∣tion, may be lawfully abolished.

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

1. That this Festivall is of so antient Institution,

as primitively Catholick, if not Apostolick Seeing it hath beene made appear to be, neither 1.

Apostolicke, or 2. a Primitive Institution, nor 3. Of Catholick observation, till at least the 400. yeare, by his owne con∣fession.

2. That it is

more than lawfull, pi∣ous

in it selfe.

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

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

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

Whither by any obligation of conscience it appear necessary to be thus abolished, on this onely ground, of truth, because the following dayes have sometimes beene mispent in riot &c. by some wicked men.

But here again, the Doctor takes for granted, what hee hath not proved, viz. That the onely ground of truth, or onely true ground of abolish∣ing this Festivall, was the Riot commit∣ted, in the following daies; whereas the principall charge against it was, the Super∣stition, and Willworship, attending the ob∣servation

of it; though the Riot and propha∣nesse of the following daies, might justly adde an Aggravation to them; and call for a Reformation.

And now, for a conclusion of all, wee shall make bold, to propound some questi∣ons to the Doctor, or any that shall under∣take this cause; And they are these.

1.

Whither any Church, nationall, or universall (since the Apostles) have power to institute any Religious Ceremo∣nies as parts of worship, &c. (as it is propounded, Sect. 9.) and in particular, this Festivall of Christmas, making it a part of Divine worship, the day equally holy as the Lords day, &c. and not be Su∣perstitious.

2.

Whither if any Humane Institu∣tion in the worship of God be abused to Superstition, and prophanesse, it may not, ought not to be abolished.

3.

Whither the Feast of Christmas in speciall, hath not been abused to riot and excesse by the most part of vulgar people, and to Superstition also, by them, and many Divines, and by the Doctor himself.

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

4. If so, then,

Whither it was not ne∣cessary for such as have power in their

hands,

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

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

Hic existimamus Regulam illam habere locum:

Adiaphora non necessaria, hor∣renda Idolomania polluta, esse abo∣lenda.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sect. 71.
• * 1.2

  Sect. 63.
• * 1.3

  1 Pet. 1.18
• * 1.4

  Sir Henr. Spilm. con∣cil. Brit. p. 16.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 5. c. 22.
• * 1.6

  See Lo Falk. re∣ply. p. 99.
• * 1.7

  Ceremo∣nies bur∣thenous in the number, might turn it in∣to evill Will wor∣ship. sect. 25.
• * 1.8

  Vide Estium & Corne l. A lapide in locum.
• * 1.9

  Of Super∣stition▪ sect. 45.
• * 1.10

  Of Super∣stit. sect 38.
• * 1.11

  That were to restrain our liber∣ty, and to exchange one bur∣then for another. So the Dr. of Su∣perstition sect. 56.
• * 1.12

  Act 25:
• * 1.13

  Vid. Ap∣pend.
• * 1.14

  Pract. Ca∣tech. on 4. Comma∣ndement.
• * 1.15

  See Sab∣bath. Re∣devivum at large these things.
• * 1.16

  A Nimi∣ety or excesse of Religion.
• * 1.17

  Sees. 48.
• * 1.18

  Exam. Conc. Trid. p. de diebus Fest. p. 265
• * 1.19

  See Sect. 59. To be esteemed above o∣ther daies of the year, &c. consecrating it from common to sacred uses.
• * 1.20

  Sect. 77. being (more then law∣full) pious in it self.
• * 1.21

  Sect. 59. An obla∣tion to God in honour to him, &c. Treat. of Wilwor∣ship, sect. 29. See sect. 59. people may not without offence to God fol∣low their lawful vocations on that day. Rest is made an oblation to God.
• * 1.22

  Willwor∣ship. s. 28.
• * 1.23

  Serm. de Temp. 250
• * 1.24

  In pract. Catechism.
• * 1.25

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys.
• * 1.26

  See sect. 57. The Lords day by the same au∣thority appoint∣ed: yet sect. 31. he saies the A∣postles in∣stituted the Lords day.
• * 1.27

  The Satur¦nalia were celebrated about the same time. sect. 63.
• * 1.28

  Lib. 5. cap. 22.
• * 1.29

  Vide Tolet in Ioh. 10.23.
• * 1.30

  Estius in locum.
• * 1.31

  In locum.
• * 1.32

  Serm of Resurr.
• * 1.33

  Epit. Hist. Cen. 4. cap. 47.
• * 1.34

  As the Romans did, s. 67.
• * 1.35

  Vbi supra p. 263.
• * 1.36

  Sect. 61:
• * 1.37

  Quaer. 1. Sect. 10.
• * 1.38

  Vide Chemnit. Prolegom. 4. p. 14. a, in Harmon. & p. 15: a. As baptized in the beginning of December.
• * 1.39

  Sect. 45. Harm in locum.
• * 1.40

  Tom. 5. p. 512. l. 23.
• * 1.41

  So in Ambr. in locum.
• * 1.42

  Tom. 5. p. 512. l. 15.
• * 1.43

  Quaere 1. Sect. 35
• * 1.44

  Quaer. 1. sect. 38.
• * 1.45

  Lo. Falk. reply p. 73.
• * 1.46

  pag. 181.
• * 1.47

  Chemnit. Exam. de dieb. Fest. Ames. Me∣dul. in 4. precept. D. Riv. in Exod. 20. p. 206. 6.