A testimony against several prophane and superstitious customs now practised by some in New-England the evil whereof is evinced from the Holy Scriptures and from the writings both of ancient and modern divines / by Increase Mather.

A Testimony against seve∣ral Prophane and Super∣stitious Customs, &c.

CHAPTER I.

Against Health-D••inking. The Definition of an Health. Reasons to prove the Ʋnlawfulness of Healthing. That Practice is amongst the Reliques of Heathenism It was in its first Institution abominably Idolatrous. Its Original is from Hell. 'Tis an occasion of much Sin. Health-Drinking as usually practised, is against Charity, Justice, and Reason. Wise, Sober and good Men have utterly condemned it. The Tremendous Judgments of God upon Notorious Heathens not to be slighted. Several Pleas for Healthing answer∣ed.

IT has been made a Question by some, Why may not Christians Drink or Pledge Healths? Is there any Sin in such a Practice which hath been used by the genera∣lity of Mankind, Time out of mind? Now that we may not mistake in stating the Controvers••, it will be needful to enquire into the Nature and Definition of an Health. I shall not Enumerate, nor am I willing to Defile my Pen with mentioning the cursed Mysteries and Ceremonies obser∣ved by some Health-Drinkers. Joh. Fred. Matenesius a 1.1 in his Book de Ritu Bibendi super Sanitate Magnatum, has described enough of them. An Health is not mearly ones saying when he Drinks to another, that he wisheth the Health of such a Person present or absent; Nevertheless, where the

using of such Expressions proves any way offensive, to be sure Tutius est abstinere, it is Charity to forbear them. But an Health is that which doth Oblige men to Drink such a quantity of Liquor, as an Indication of their Praying for the Health or Prosperity of such a Person, or of such a Design.

According to this Description, we conceive, That a Chri∣stian ought not, nor can he without Sin against God, either Pledge or Drink an Health. And the more especial Reasons which sway our Consciences in this matter, are these follow∣ing.

1. Christians ought not to retain any Remainders of Hea∣thenism. It is confessed by all, that as to Natural Actions which belong to men as men, it doth not follow, that because the Heathen have so practised it of Old, that Christians who succeed them may not do the same things. But in Ceremo∣nies and things of a Religious Nature, they are not to be imitated. To Dedicate a Cup, or Consecrate an Health, is not an Action purely Natural or Moral. The Worldly and Vain Customs of the Gentiles are not to be taken up by such as profess themselves to be the Servants of the True God in Christ. The Holy Scriptures do clearly, expresly, and abun∣dantly prohibit all Symbolizing with the Heathens, Levit. 20. 23. You shall not walk in the manners of the Nations. See also Chap. 18. v. 2, 3. and Jer. 10. 2. Learn not the way of the Heathen. Psal. 106. 35. They were mingled among the Heathen, and learned their Works. Ezek. 11. 12. You have done after the manner of the Heathen that are round about you. Matth. 6. 7. Ʋse not, &c. as the Heathen do. Rom. 12. 2. Be not conformed to this World. Eph. 2. 2. In time past you walked according to the Course of this World. And Chap. 4. 17. This therefore I say and Testify in the Lord, that henceforth you walk not as other Gentiles walk in the Vanity of their Mind. 1. Pet. 1. 14. As Obedient Children, not fa∣shioning your selves according to the former Lusts, in your Ignorance. And Verse 18. Redeemed from your vain Conversa∣tion, received by Tradition from your Fathers. And Chap. 4. 3. The times past of our Lives may suffice us to have wrought the Will of the Gentiles. I have produced these Scrip∣tures to prove that there ought to be a difference between Christians and other men; And that Non-Conformity to the Heathenish customs of the World is by the Lord himself en∣joyned upon all his Servants. But that the impleaded Health∣ing was not first practised amongst the People of God, whe∣ther

Christians or Jews of Old, is past all dispute; Learned men, who have written on this Subject, shew how it is amongst the Reliques of Paganism, which has through the Papacy ex∣onerated it self into the sink of a decaying World. Instead of many, I shall only produce Austin's Testimony, which does suficiently confirm what has been asserted. b 1.2 His words are these, Illa foeda & infoelix Consuetudo, per quam grandi Mensurâ, sine Mensurâ, solent bibere, de Paganorum observa∣tione remansit; Ideò tanquam Venenum Diaboli de vestris Conviviis respuatis. That filthy and unhappy Custom (saith Austin) of Drinking Healths is a Relique of Paganism, and let Christians banish it from their Feasts and Tables, as the Poyson of the Devil. Thus has the great Austin expressed himself above 1200 years ago. Health-Drinkers may call him a Phanatic, if they please.

2. That Practice which was in its first Institution abomina∣bly Idolatrous, and which has still in it an appearance of Ido∣latry, ought not at all to be used amongst Christians. The first and great Commandment of the Moral Law confirms this Proposition; and so do all those Scriptures which require men to flee from Idolatry, and not to tolerate any Remain∣ders or Remembrances of Idolatry amongst them; The Holy Word of God abounds with Precepts of this nature. See Psal. 16. 4. Isa. 2. 18. Zeph. 1. 4 1 Cor. 10. 14. 1 Thes. 5. 22. But this Healthing was in its first Institution abominably Idolatrous. No man that has made it his concern by Reading to enquire in∣to these things, can be Ignorant, that the Heathen, who were the first Healthers, did at their Feast Drink an Haustum Sa∣lutis, first c 1.3 to their Gods, and then to their Patrons and Friends. Particularly, They had one Cup which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, An Health to Jove; another that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which did imply a Prayer to Fo••∣tune—Te, Fortuna, Deam facimus, Coelo{que} locamus; than which there cannot be more hateful Idolatry. From Ethnic's some Idolatrizing Christians have learned to Drink Healths to Angels, and to the Souls of departed Saints; But shall men that profess the True Religion, do any thing that shall seem to be a Symbolizing with such Idolaters? The Health-Drinker seems to Worship the Object of that Health. Fabio, Sacrum libavit Honorem. It is well said by d 1.4 Bishop Hall, That an Healther by his Forms of Ceremonious quaffing, does make himself a Beast, while he makes a God of others. And do not those Ceremonies of putting off the Hat, and Kneeling,

frequently practised by Health-Drinkers intimate some kind of Adoration? Besides, for any man to make his Drinking to signifie an Invocation of the Name of God, or to be the Amen of a Prayer, declaring his Desires that such a Person may have Health, is Superstition, and falls under the Idola∣try forbidden in the Second Commandment. An Health is indeed a Profane Sacrament. Hence are those words of Am∣brose, Quid memorem Sacramenta! B••bamus pro Salute Im∣peratorum. Amongst the Gentiles of old, Healthing did im∣ply Sacrifice and Prayer.

3. That which had its Original from Hell, should not be practised by Christians, whose Conversation ought to be in Hea∣ven. This is so clear a Proposition, as that I shall not use Words to confirm it. He must be an Atheist to a Prodigy, that shall contradict it. But the Impleaded Healthing had its Original from Hell. This is not my single Apprehension. Very Learned and ‡ 1.5 Judicious writers affirm that the Devil himself was the first Author, Institutor, and Inventor of Health-Drinking. It was in its first rise used as a Drink-Offering to Satan. There were among the Jews of old, Drink-offerings poured out to the True and Holy God, be∣ing part of the Ceremonial Worship, once of Divine Institu∣tion. Gen. 35. 14. Exod. 29, 40, 41. And a Cup of Healths Psal. 115. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in their solemn Thanksgiv∣ings the Master of the Feast e 1.6 holding in his hand before the Lord, did praise him for all his Salvations. And in f 1.7 imitation hereof, Satan who takes Pleasure in Corrupting the Worship of God, and arrogates to himself a Divine Ser∣vice, caused the Blind Gentiles, (whose God he was) to ho∣nour him with Healths and Drink-offerings. In those Dark and Dismal Ages which passed before the Sun of Righteous∣ness arose over the Earth, all the Nations of the Word (ex∣cepting Israel) worshipped the Dragon. And Healths were one part of that Sacrifice and Service which the Gentiles ho∣noured Beelzebub with. The Apostle speaks of the Cup of Devils 1 Cor. 10. 21. Amongst the Devils Cups there was a Poculum in Delibatum (as Minutius Foelix calls it) out of which they drank to their Gods, and by saluting them in that way, manifested a Religious Adoration of those Infernal spirits. Chersias in Plutarch g 1.8 intimates that the great God Jupiter (and we know who was the Jupiter worshipped by the Heathen) made a Feast for the Inferior Gods, and poured Wine into a Cup, and enjoyned them in a Course to

Drink it off. Basil in one of his h 1.9 Sermons, sheweth that the Heathen Greeks had in their Feasts a Master of Healths; One that should see that each of the Guests did drink off the Cup of Wine presented to him in his Course and Or∣der. And of this Law (saith he) the Devil himself was the Author. And hence it comes to pass that Satan is so much delighted with Healths,; He may well, when Homage is done to himself thereby. He rejoiceth to see miserable Mortals taken with that which was his Device, invented on purpose to Debauch mankind, and as an Engine for their Destruction. I omit here that which Delrio and i 1.10 others have related from the Confessions of sundry detected M••gicians, viz. that in the Conventicles and Festivals of Witches they are wont to carouse Healths in honour to Beelzebub and his Inferior Ca∣codaemons.

4. It is the unquestionable Duty of every Christian to avoid the Occasions of Sin as much as may be. The Command∣ment which forbids such a Sin, requires that men take heed of the Occasions and Temptations leading thereunto. Prov. 5. 8. & 23. 31. Eph. 5. 11. A Christian ought not only to shun the Occasions of Sin himself, but to be careful not to cast an Occasion of sinning before his Neighbour. This is that Scandalizing or Giving Offence to others which the Holy Scriptures do so often caution men against. Scandalum est quod inductivum Peccati. He that is drawn into Sin, is of∣fended and made to fall. Christians ought not to omit a Duty▪ lest others should from thence take Occasion to sin; but they should forbear many Indifferent things, when the Practice of them will become an occasion of Evil, Rom. 14. 20, 21. The holy Apostle saith, If meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no Flesh while the World stands, lest I make my Brother to Offend. 1 Cor. 8. 13. supposing what must not be granted, that the Drinking of an Health is in it self of an Indifferent nature; Nevertheless, if it become an Occasion of much Sin, that Practice ought to be wholly laid aside. But that the impleaded Healthing has occasioned a World of Iniquity to be committed needs no Proof. It oc∣casions Gods name to be Dishonoured with respect to the Abuse of his Creatures, and so is a Breach of the Third Com∣mandment. It has occasioned the Sin of Drunkenness more than a thousand millions of Times. When wicked men intend a Debauch, they are wont to begin with an Health. Wendelin testifieth that among the Germans, they set an Health a go∣ing,

Ebrietatis conciliandae gratia, that so they may have a Drunken bout. The Ancients have called Healthing, The De∣vils shooing-horn whereby he draws on Drunkenness. The most Judicious Ames k 1.11 observes, that it is one of the My∣steries of Bacchus whereby men are artificially and cunningly drawn into an Excess of Drinking. And it has been the Cause of infinite Quarrels. The rude Complement of the old Health-drinkers in Polonia, l 1.12 was, Aut mihi praebibe, aut mecum armis decertato. There is too much of that Genius in many Healthers still. It would be Endless to speak of all the Vain words, Censures, and wicked Reproaches, nay Oaths and Blasphemies, which have been the natural and woful fruit of Health-Drinking.

5. Healthing, as usually practised, is against the Rules of Charity, Justice, and Reason. He that puts another upon Drinking such a quantity of strong Liquor, when perhaps he has enough and too much already, does not shew that Chari∣ty either to his Neigbours Soul or Body which the Rule re∣quires. And Wo to him that giveth his Neighbour drink: that puts his Bottle to him and makes him drunk also, Hab. 2. 15. Men pretend Charity to another in Drinking his Health, whereas many times thereby they Destroy their own and their Neighbours too. That witty Epigrammatist saith true, m 1.13

"Ʋna Salus Sanis nullam potare Salutem, "Non est in potâ vera Salute Salus.

And equal Draughts of Wine imposed on all persons are con∣trary to the Rules of Distributive Justice. That may be Be∣neficial to one that would be Banefull to another, according to the Tempers or Distempers of mens Bodies. And it is an unjust and Tyran••i••al Invasion on the Liberty which be∣longs to every one both as a Man and as a Christian, when he is obliged to Drink more, than his present Appetite in∣clines him unto. And it is against Reason for a man to drink for anothers Health. Suppose he should be required to Eat a Pound of Flesh, or of Cheese, when he is not Hungry, and that for the Health of his Friend, How Irrational would the Proposal be? And it is no better when a man that is not a∣thirst is required to Drink a Pint of Liquor for anothers Health. This is worse then brutish Folly. An Ox or an

Horse will not drink more then sufficeth Nature. A Learn∣ed n 1.14 man relates a Facetious Passage concerning a notori∣ous Health-drinker, who having continued drinking Healths to the honour of Saint John, till his Wits were wet-shod; as he returned home, riding through a Brook, he bad his Horse drink to the Honour of Saint John, but the Beast not being thirsty, would drink nothing. And the Drunken man had so much Reason left in him as to confess, Certè Equus est me sapientior, that his Horse that would drink no Healths, was wiser then his Master. Quantò melior Ebriosis Canis & Asinus, said Chrysostom of old in one of his Homilies. When Gla∣reanus was importuned by some to drink more then he had an Appetite unto, o 1.15 He put them off with that Answer, Num isto Cane insipientiorem ne vultis? A Brute has more wit then to do so.

6. That which Wise, Sober, but especially Good men, have utterly disliked, may well be suspected as Evil, and Christians should be careful how they comply with such a Practise. But this is true of Health-drinking. Some of the wisest men in the World have manifested their great Dislike thereof. Charles the Great made a Law to punish such of his Souldiers as should Compel or Invite any to drink an Health. Likewise the Emperors p 1.16 Maximilian and Charles V. did seek to Reform that Evil Custome, emitting Edicts for the Punish∣ment of such as should be found guilty of it, and exhorting Ministers to preach against it. Popish Authors are general∣ly lax Casuists, yet some of them have had so much of Mo∣rality in them, as to write against the Impleaded Healthings. So does Joh. Fred. Matenesius, withal reflecting on the Pro∣testant Profession, because Healths are so rife amongst those that go under that Name. But he might have considered that Papists are no less guilty. Also, Sanctius, Serrarius, Lessi∣us, Boenartius, Canonhierus, Chavassius, notwithstanding their being Papists, have disliked this Heathenish Custom. Yea, Pope Innocent III. q 1.17 made a Decree against it, withal or∣dering, that if any of the Clergy should be proved guilty of Healthing, He should be suspended ab Officio & Beneficio, without giving due Satisfaction for his offence. And not on∣ly Christians but moral Heathens have banisht Healths, from their Tables, and out of their Feasts. We have one great in∣stance of it recorded in the Scripture.

When Ahasuerus made a mighty Feast, according to the State of the Emperor of Persia, the Drinking was according to

the Law, None did compel, for so had the King appointed to all the Officers of his house, that they should do according to every mans Pleasure, Esther 1. 8. Lyra (a Christianized Jew) in his Commentary on those words does justly inveigh against the Health-drinking practised by Christians. And well may he, when there are Persians and Heathens to rise up in Judgment against them. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Licentious Greeks was once disliked by the Grave Romans; Tully r 1.18 writes that Circumpotation (i. e. Health-drinking) was abrogated by the Roman Laws. Afterwards indeed they did relapse into that vice again, as bad as ever. Yet some of their Poets did satyrically reprove it, styling the Rites about Health-drinking s 1.19 Mad Laws. I pretermit other Instances of men who had only the Light of Nature to direct them, and yet looked upon this Healthing as an unreasonable Custom, and that which had a tendency to corrupt good manners.

He that would see more may peruse what Mr. Prin t 1.20 has written on this Subject. But men truly fearing God have much more abominated this ill Custom. The Scripture saith▪ Walk in the way of Good men, and in the Path of the Righ∣teous, Prov. 2. 20. Are the greatest Healthers good men? Would any one be willing to have his Soul gathered with theirs when he must leave this World? Sound Christi∣ans in the primitive Times were no Health-drinkers. It is indeed manifest by one of Nazianzens Orations against Ju∣lian, that some loose Christians in those days did drink Healths in a Pretended Honour to Christianity, as the Pa∣gans did to their Gods, and great ones. And we see by what A••stin complains of, that some would drink at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs in Honour to them. Though in truth, they could not reproach the Martyrs and Christianity more then by thus Paganizing. But the Serious and True Primitive Christians refused Healths, for which the Heathen exclaimed against them, as if they wanted due Devotion ••o their Em∣perors. Hence the Ancient and Famous Teachers in the Christian Church have testified against this Iniquity▪ So Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, and Basil amongst the Greek▪ Fathers (as they use to be styled.) So Ambrose, A••stin, and Jerom amongst the Latins, whose sayings are largely recited by Mr. Prin, Mr. Bolton, and others. And amongst modern Pro∣testant Divines it were easie to produce a cloud of Witnesses in this cause. Voetius, Rittershusius, Loccenius, Teeling, Taffin, Crocius, and I know not how many besides. A∣mongst

our English writers, Dr. Ames (a man for his learn∣ed Works deservedly famous in all Protestant Churches) Mr. Downham, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Ward, Mr. Har∣ris, Dr. Hall, and Mr. Thomas Hall, have witnessed against this Ev••l▪ Mr. Geree has also published a Treatise discover∣ing the Vanity and Iniquity of it. The late famous Judge Hale u 1.21 made a Solemn vow to God that he would never drink an Health as long as he lived; which vow he kept to his dying day. None could prevail with Him to drink so much as the King's Health, though but for one time. For which cause some indecent men unworthily charged that Noble and truly Loyal person with obstinacy.

These things sufficiently prove that they are mistaken, who think that only a few Silly and Humorous men have dis∣approved of Healths. Some who have been Foolish and Vain to a great Excess, upon their growing Wise have utter∣ly left their Health-drinking, with bitter Sorrow that ever they had been so Foolish. The Repentance of Mr. Francis Cartwright (mentioned by w 1.22 Mr Bolton) was many years ago published, wherein he hath this Expression, It now wounds me to the Heart to think of my Drinking Healths. It may be when men come to have real Visions of Eternity, or when they lye upon Death-beds, they will repent of this their way which has been their Folly.

7. The tremendous Judgments of God which have befallen notorious Health-drinkers, are not to be slighted▪ Many Au∣thors worthy of Credit have taken notice of this. Schussel∣bergius in his x 1.23 Epistles hath several awful examples of the tremedous Vengeance of Heaven which fell upon some wicked Scholars as they had been drinking Healths. Mr. Ward in his Wo to Drunkards, hath six or seven Instances of mi∣serable men who died before their Time, by means of this Iniquity. A great Healther had once a Ring given to him with this Poesy in it, Drink and Dy. So has many a wret∣ched Healther done. He hath Drunk and Dyed. Yea, with his Healths drunk his Soul into those Flames, which (as one speaks) all the Ocean can never quench, though he should health it down. Memorable and fearful was that In∣stance of Mr. Richard Juxon (once a Fellow of Kings-Col∣ledge in Cambridge) who as he was drinking and Healthing ••ell down dead in a moment; and his Carcase immediately so corrupted as that the stench of it was insufferable, inso∣much that no house would receive it. Alexander the y 1.24

Great killed himself with drinking an Health out of Hercules his Cup. Most Tragical is the Relation concerning 20 of the chief Princes in Pomerania z 1.25 who were all of them poysoned to Death in one day, because they did not refuse to drink King Popelus his Health, when the Queen (who had prepared the Poyson) urged them to it.

But let us consider a little the chief Pleas and Arguments which are made use of to justifie this unhappy Custom.

1. Some argue, If a Remembrance of an absent Friend, when one drinks, is lawful, then an Health is so; But you are not so humorous as to scruple that. Answ. The Consequence is denied. For a Remembrance and an Health are not the same. The Primitive Christians a 1.26 had their Pocula Amicitiae, which was the same thing with our Drinking one to another, and Remembring our absent Friends. But they had no Healths among them, as we have shewed. In a Remembrance (as it is called) a man is not obliged to drink up the whole Cup. Nor is the Person to whom he drinks obliged to pledge him, except he seeth cause. He is left to his Liberty to Pledge where, and in what, and how he pleases, which things are contrary to the Laws of an Health. A Remembrance is usu∣ally of Friends and Equals, when as an Health is commonly to Superiors. So that these two differ the whole Heaven over.

2. Some excuse the Matter by saying, They do not compel others to Pledge them when they drink an Health. Answer, This is so far well. I wish all could say so. Nevertheless, It should be considered, that the very Beginning of an Health has some kind of Compulsion in it. Especially when the Exorcism of a Great Name is added to the health. Eve∣ry one hath not Power and Courage to withstand the Tem∣ptation of such an Adjuration.

3. There are who excuse themselves by pleading, They are loth to be Ʋncivil, or that any should take occasion to think them morose and ill-humored. Answer, The Incivility is on their part who urge the health, and not in them who out of Conscience refuse it. Nor will any Ingenuous person be offended at him who shall with Discretion and Modesty decline Pledging an Health. It was not taken offensively from that noble Statesman who said, I'le pray for the Kings Health, and drink for my own. Nor was the Duke of Buck∣ingham displeased with Dr. Pres••on for his not complying with the ceremonies of an Health, but misliked the incivility of

the Person that would have imposed it. Nor was Al••xander offended at the Philosopher who told him, He was not free to drink his Health, and that for this reason, because he had no Desire to make himself stand in need of Aes••ulapius, when thereby he could do Alexander no good.

4. It is pleaded that the famous Luther drank an Health, and other Good men have not scrupled it Answ. If Luther did any such thing upon his first coming out of Popery and Monkery, and before he saw the Evil of it, none ought to alledge his example to justify an unlawful deed. Nor is it certain that Luther did thus after his Conversion. Prote∣stant writers do not acknowledge the fact, when it has been objected to them. Only some Popish Authors tell a Story of a Prodigious Health which Luther drank to Islebius the German Antimonian. But the Papists have invented a thou∣sand lies, not only of Luther, but of Zuinglius and Calvin, and other great Reformers, in Design to cast an odium up∣on the Protestant Religion. Besides, it is the poorest argu∣ment that can be, Some good men have done such a thing, therefore it is lawful. It was shewed before that the Gene∣rality of Good men have declined Healths as Paganish and Scandalous things. And when any Good men have indulged themselves in this Practice, commonly it has been for want of Information, concerning the Evil of it. Had they known the true Original, and been convinced of the Super∣stition attending this ill Custom, they would never have used it. Persons well inclined will harken to Scripture and Reason. And it is chiefly for the sake of such that I write these things. As for some who are now become profane and debauched Health-drinkers, there is little or no hope of their Reformation. Having lived for some time under the power∣ful Dispensation of the Gospel, but sinned against that bles∣sed Light, and also rebelled against the Light of their own Consciences, it is to be feared that Gods holy Spirit has ta∣ken his Everlasting leave of them, never more to strive with them, but that they are in a Judicial way given up by the Righteous and Terrible God unto a Reprobate mind, and hard heart. It may be God has said of them, Their Health∣ing is their Idol, they are joined to it, and let them alone. He that is a Profane Health-drinker, let him ••e an Health∣drinker still. And if so, (I pray that this may never be the wo∣ful case of any amongst us; but if so) all that can be spoken or written to such persons will do them no good; ••••r serve to

any other purpose, but only to render them the more inexcu∣sable before the great Tribunal at the last day, and to make Eternal Justice the more Illustrious in their condemnation. And it is a comf••r•• that we know, we are unto God a sweet Savour of Christ, not only in them that are saved, but also in them that perish.

CHAP. II.

Against Dicing, Cards, and such like Games. That it is safest wholly to abstain from them. The Lot∣tery in them makes their Lawfulness to be doubt∣ful. Eminently Learned Divines have judged them to be in their own nature Sinful. They are of Evil Report. There is a secret Curse attending them. They are offensive. It is unquestionably Lawful to abstain from them. As such Games are commonly used, they are certainly and hainously Evil in the sight of God. The Evil of Playing for Money: and of mis-spending much Precious Time in such Vanities.

AS for Games of Hazard and Chance, such as Dicing and Cards, and sundry Games at Tables, there are great Di∣vines (as anon we shall shew) who judge them to be in their own nature Unlawful. Others suppose that if the Rules which should be remembred in all Recreations, respecting the Time, and Measure, and Manner, and the End of them, were duly observed, they might without Sin be used. Two things we may assert. 1. That it is best and safest, wholly to abstain from the Games mentioned. 2. That as they are commonly practised, there is much Sin and Provocation to God in them. Both these I shall endeavour to clear. My first Assertion is, That it is best and safest to decline all such Games; and that for these Reasons:

1. There is real weight in that Argument, commonly made use of by Divines, from the Lottery which is in the im∣pleaded Games, to prove that they are Breaches of the Third Commandment, and so in themselves Ʋnlawful. It is granted, that there is Art and Skill mixed in some of these Games; Nevertheless, there is a Lottery in them. Now a Lot is a serious thing not to be triffled with; the Scripture saith not only (as some would have it) of Extraordinary Lots, but of a Lot in general, that the whole Disposing (or Judgm••nt) thereof is of the Lord, Prov. 16. 33. So that when the Lot is cast, God sits in Judgment. The Lot (as Mr. Cartwright a 1.27 speaks) is as Gods Deputy, who is Judge of the World, and unto whose Providence appeal is made to decide the Que∣stion. Mr. Perkins (who was a man of a very clear and accurate Judgment) well observes b 1.28 that in the use of a Lot there are four things,

The first is a Casual Act done by man, as the casting of the Die. The second is the ap∣plying of this Act to the Determination of some particular Controversy, the ending whereof maintains Peace, Order, &c. The third is Confession, that God is a Soveraign Judge to end and determine things which can no other way be de∣termined. The fourth is Supplication, that God would by the Disposition of the Lot order the Event.

Now from these Considerations, Grave and Great Divines have esteemed all Lusory Lots to be Unlawful. We may not either by Words or Actions invocate the Name, and make Appeals to the Pro∣vidences of God on every trifling occasion. As an Oath or Prayer, so a Lot is prophaned, when not solemnly used. A worthy Person c 1.29 speaks well to this purpose, when he saith, What an Abomination would it be to any Christian to see a Pulpit, a Communion-Table, a Font exposed on a Stage, or the Gestures of Worship aped by Players? And it is not much better, when men play with Appeals to God, or make themselves sport with Lotteries. Whereas some have affirm∣ed a Lot fittest for trivial matters, their Assertion is very un∣sound. We do not find in the Scripture, that ever a Lot was made use of, except in matters of great weight, either in themselves, or in respect of their Consequences; sometimes when the matter has not been great in it self, yet to prevent endless Contentions and Controversies, a Lot has been used amongst the Lords People of Old, Lev. 27. 32. Prov. 18. 18. but not in matters of Disport. The very Gentiles them∣selves thought there was a Ti Theion, something Divine in a

Lot, as is manifest from J••nah 1. 7. They concluded that some Numen or D••ity must needs direct their Chance, which (being ignorant of the True God) they did superstitiously ascribe to Fortune. And do not Gamesters at this day use to say, They'll try their Fortune: And that they had bad Luck, that Fortune was against them, and the like Paganish Ex∣pressions, by which nevertheless they acknowledge a Director of the Chance. This must be either God, which if they confess, the c••use is yielded or a Good Angel by his directi∣on; or an Evil Angel, unto whom they will not own that they make any Appeals, or owe any Subjection. He that makes use of a Lot, wholly commits his Affair to a superior Cause then either Nature or Art, therefore unto God. But this ought not to be done in a Sportful Lusory way.

2. Practices, which eminenly Learnedly Divines and Holy Ministers of God, who are most likely to know the Truth, have looked upon as Sinful, it is best and safest to abstain from them. But this is true of the Games in question. I know that Popish Casuists (who in matters of Morality, as well as in matters of Faith, are many times corrupt) do justify the im∣pleaded Games as Lawful. So Tolet, A Lapide, Delrio, and others. Yet Papists will not allow of such Games in Eccle∣siastical Persons. One of them d 1.30 maintains it to be a Mortal Sin for a Clergy-man to play at Cards and Dice. Several Councils have made it a Crime worthy of Excommunication, for a Clergy-men either to Practise or to be present at such Games. Not only the Canonical, but the Civil Law of Old has stigmatized them. Amongst the Ancients they are re∣proved with great severity, particularly by e 1.31 Clemens Alex∣andrinus, f 1.32 Chrystom, g 1.33 Cyprian, h 1.34 Ambrose, i 1.35 Au∣stin. As for our great Reformers, they have generally con∣demned such Games, as in themselves unlawful. So Martyr, Gaulter, Rivet, Taffin, and Danaeus, who has written a Learned Discourse on this Subject. The Dutch and French Ministers of the Reformation, do generally disapprove of these Games; and so do our English Divines: In special Mr. Cart∣wright, Mr. Perkins, Dr. Ames, Mr. Fenner, Mr. Easty, Mr. Dod. Yea, and two Bishops also have testified against them, viz. Bishop Babington, and Bishop Downham. As for Dr Hammond, who was a man very corrupt in many of h••s Notions, and in some points of Doctrine, which are of great concernment; I do not judge his peading for the law∣fulness of such Recreations worthy the taking notice of; nor

can I call to mind more then two Protestants of Note, who have published any thing considerable in defence of these Games. k 1.36 Balduinus (a Lutheran Casuist) excuseth them. Also, our Learned Gataker has taken more pains to prove the Indifference of them, then any I have seen. But he writ that Discourse in his younger years; and has been well answered by Mr. Balmford, and Learnedly refuted by Voeti∣us. Yea, and Mr. Gataker himself, after he had said all he could say, wisheth l 1.37 that men would in Godly Discretion abandon such Games, because they are so much abused, and many are unsatisfied in the lawfulness of them.

3, It is best and safest to abstain from all things which are of evil Report. The Apostolical Rule is, Whatsoever things are of Good Report; Practices that will cause a man to have a Good name among sober People, If there be any Vertue, if there be any Praise, think on these things. Phil, 4. 8. which sheweth that things infamous or of ill report, should be carefully avoided▪ But so are the impleaded Games. The Satyrist calls the Dice by the name of Alea turpis. And the Orator brands Cataline and Antony with this infamy, that they were men that used to play at Dice. And the generality of good men abstain from them as evil & infamous things. Are not such Games branded as infamous, when in every Indenture for a Prentice, these words are usual, At cards, dice, or any other unlawfull and prohibited Games he shall not play.

4. It has been observed by many that there is a secret Curse at∣tending these Games. Hence it is that when persons have once a little used themselves hereunto, they can know no bounds therein. They are so x 1.38 bewittht with a Gaming Humor, as that they will lose their Friends, Esteem, Estate and every thing else that's desireable, rather then play no more at Cards. Infinite Evils and Miseries have sprung up from this bitter Root. So that the Tree has been justly suspected as not Good, upon which such bad Fruit has grown. m 1.39 Non facile add••∣car licitum consentire, quod tot parturit illicita, It is then best and safest not to meddle therewith.

5. These Games are offensive. And that both to Good and Bad, The Scripture saith, Give none offence neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. 1. C••r. 10. 32. But these impleaded Games give offence to all. Good men are grieved at such Practices as in their Consciences are unlawfull. And many Carnal ones are hardened in their Profuse∣ness and Profaneness when they hear of any that seem to be Re∣ligious

in other things, to do in these matters as they do, though perhaps not altogether in the like Degree.

6. If there were nothing else to be said, but that the law∣fulness of such Games is doubtfull, that's enough to make wise men to abstain from them. Suppose it could not be clearly proved that they are absolutely and in their own nature sinfull, yet if the matter be any way disputable, tis Best & Safest to keep clear of them. Iam sure there is no sin in not playing at Cards and Dice. And then as long as there are other Recreations enough, concerning which there is no Doubt of their Lawfulness; it is best to desist wholly from them that are Doubtful, and make use of others. These things make good what I first proposed. My second assertion, is, That the impleaded Games, as com∣monly practised, are unquestionably sinful and provoking to God.

1. It is common for such Gamesters to play away their Estates, or to get other mens Estates in this way, both which are exceeding sinfull. When God has possessed a man of an Estate which he has a just Title unto, now for him to make it a Que∣stion whether this Estate shall be his or another mans, and then to decide the controversy by the shuffling of Cards or the cast of a Die, is unworthily to abuse the good Providence of God, and so to transgress the third Commandment. This is also to break the 8th Commandment in a very High Degree. To get another mans goods, at an under price is injustice and theft, and clearly against the Rule of Righteousness, how much more to take from another his Money, and give him nothing at all in lieu thereof? It is a crying sin! Who can, who dare pray to God to bless his endeavours to get an Estate in this way? Most cer∣tainly the Holy God who hates Robbery for Burnt-offering, would not hold the man guiltless that should thus take his name in vain: whenas all lawfull wayes of adding to our Estates may and should be prayed over. That worthy and truely Religious Gentleman Mr. John Bruen (see his life written by Mr. Clark p. 91.) was wont to say, that such Gamesters and Thieves were of the same Corporation, & the more cunning men are in that Art, the more wicked. And a late writer observes that Money gotten by Gaming is like the goods of them that dye of the plague, which commonly bring a Pest with them. He that shall add but a little to his Estate by getting money from ano∣ther in any such unrighteous way, will perhaps find that little to be like a Moth that shall consume, and bring a secret Blast of God upon all that he enjoyes. And He that gets Riches and not by Right (the man that gets a summ of Money by playing

at Cards, has gotten Riches and not by Right) He shall leave them in the midst of his Dayes, and at his end be a Fool. Jer. 17. 11. I would seriously advise all such persons, so far as they are capable, to return back their ill gotten goods again, as ever they desire pardoning Mercy at the Hands of God a∣gainst whom they have grievously sinned. That saying of Au∣stins is well known, and generally approved of, Non tollitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum. He that has in a way of unrighteousness taken from another any part of his Estate, has no reason to expect the remission of his sin, until such time as he shall make restitution to the party wronged by him, so far as he is able to do it.

2. A world of precious Time (more precious then all mens Estates) is commonly spent in these vain and vexatious sports. For a Christian to use Recreations is very Lawfull, and in some cases a great Duty, but to waste so much Time in any Recrea∣tion, though never so innocent and laudable, as Gamesters usually do at Cards and Dice, and Tables, is haynously sin∣full. Every mans Eternity in another world, will be accor∣ding to his improvement of time here. What a sad account will they be able to give to the Son of God at the last Day, who have spent a very great part of that Time wherein they should have bin preparing for eternity, in nothing but idle∣ness & playes? What can there be more contrary to that Di∣vine Precept of Redeeming the Time, because the Dayes are Evil?

CHAP. III.

Against profane Christ-mass-keeping. In the Apo∣stolical Times the Feast of the Nativity was not observed. The very name of Christmass savours of superstition. It can never bee proved that Christ was born on December 25. It is most probable that the Nativity was in September. The New▪ Testament allows of no stated Holy-day but the Lords▪day. Objections answered. It was in com∣pliance with the Pagan Saturnalia that Christ∣mass Holy-dayes were first invented. The man∣ner of Christ-mass-keeping, as generally obser∣ved, is highly dishonourable to the Name of Christ.

COncerning that practice of Keeping the 25th day of De∣cember in a stated Anniversary way, as a Festival in pre∣tended honour to our Saviour Christ, and in commemoration of his Birth-day, I shall briefly present a few Arguments to the consideration of the Judicious.

1. In the pure Apostolical times there was no Christ-mass∣day observed in the Church of God. We ought to keep to the primitive Pattern. That Book of Scripture which is called, The Acts of the Apostles, saith nothing of their keeping Christ•• Nativity as an Holy-day. The a 1.40 Centuriators, and many others take notice that in the first Ages of the New-Testament Church, there were no stated Anniversary Holy-dayes among Christians. Easter was kept a long time before the Feast •••• the Nativity, and yet the Apostles never ordained that, as b 1.41 Socrates (the most excellent of the Ancient Ecclesiastical H••∣storians) does truely observe. Had there been the least hint o•• any such day observed in the primitive times, learned Voss•••• would have told the world of it. One c 1.42 saith of him, S•• pergama dextr â defendi possunt etiam hâc defensa fuissen•• But he acknowledges that the Feast of Christs Nativity was no•• kept in the first nor yet in the second Century. After Prela∣tical writers have said all they can say, Chemnitius d 1.43 h•••• words will be found true, Anniversarium diem Natalis Christi celebratum fuisse, apud vetuscissimos nunquam legitur. The

most Auncient writers speak not the least word concerning the celebration of Christs Birth-day.

2. The word Christ-mass is enough to cause such as are stu∣dious of reformation to dislike what shall be known by a name so superstitious. Why should Protestants own any thing which has the name of Mass in it? How unfuitable is it to joyn Christ and Mass together? h. e. Christ and Antichrist. But what Communion has light with Darkness, and what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2. Cor. 6. 15. some of the Jesuites e 1.44 have advised that endeavours should be used to keep up their old terms and names, such as Priest, Altar, Christ-mass, Can∣dlemass, and the like, hoping that by means thereof in time the things would follow the Names whereby their memory is preserved.

3. It can never be proved that Christs nativity was on 25. of December. The most learned and accurate Chronologers conclude otherwise; so Scaliger, Lidiat, Calvisius, Casau∣bon, Lansbergius, Alstedius; And the ablest Divines which this and the last age have known, such as Parcaeus, Scultetus, Spanhemius, Hospinian; and of our own nation, Perkins, Broughton, and innumerable more; yea, some of the most learned amongst the Papists refer the observation of December 25. to Ecclesiastical Constitution. So Petavius, Suarez, Azo∣rius, &c. The Providence of God has strangely hid the day, perhaps (as concerning Moses's Body) to prevent Idolatry. They that lived 1400 Years nearer to the time of Christs Nativity then we do, yet were at a loss about the day. Cle∣mens Alexandrinus f 1.45 (who lived Anno 200.) testifieth that in his time there were various opinions concerning it; And he reflects on them as guilty of curiosity who would go about to determine the day of Christs Birth. Moreover, when that superstition of keeping a stated Festival in comme∣moration of the day of Christs Nativity did first obtain in the Church, not the 25. of December, but the 6th day of January was the time observed. Many of the Churches in Aegypt kept the 5th of January; And so did the Christians of o•••• in Jeru∣salem. And the Armenians even untill the year 1170. And that some belonging to the Latine Church supposed that to be the true day of Christs Nativity, is evident from the Glossa or∣dinaria. g 1.46 Epiphanius conceived that to be the true time. And some of our late writers (in special Lansbergius) are of that opinion. The truth is that the keeping of December 25. came from Rome: And it began there after Constantines time.

Nor would the Graecian Churches comply with it at first. Chry∣sostom (who flourished Anno 400. circiter) in one o•• his Sermons endeavours to excuse the Novelty of that obser∣vation, acknowledging that the 25 of December had not been kept amongst them in Constantinople above ten years The Arguments commonly alledged in favour of this day are very insufficient. The Pru••ton Pseudos, or original mistake which Popish Writers (and before them some of the Ancients) have laid much weight upon, is, that Zachary was the High Priest, and that he did Minister on the 10th of Tisri, h. e. September 27, whence it would follow that John Baptist wa•• born in the latter end of June, and consequently that Christs Nativity must be in the latter end of December. But Zachary was not the High Priest; nor can it beproved that his Turn to Minister was at the time mentioned; nor could the Nativi∣ty to a day or a week be from thence demonstrated, suppo∣sing the premises to be indisputable. There have been some who pretend to a miraculous Argument for their 25 of De∣cember viz. That of the Rose of Jericho. They have given o•• that there is at Jericho a Plant like a Rose, which every year on Christ-mass-Eve flourished, and the next day is dry again. Adrichomius h 1.47 & other Papists mention this as a wonder∣full testimony to their Opinion, of 25 December. But Bel∣lonius i 1.48 has informed us that this is a Monastical Impo∣sture. There is a thorny shrub at Jerico which bears white flo∣wers; and the nature of that Plant is such, that if the Leave•• of it (tho Dry) be moistned, they will dilate themselves and seem to flourish: which the Monks observing, would o•• Christ-mass-Eve apply water thereunto, and then make Ignorant People believe that this hapned as a sign of Christs Nativity on that day. Perhaps the story of the Holy Thorn at Glassenburg in Somerset k 1.49 is the Daughter of this Fiction.

Let it be further added here, that except we could know the hour of the day when our Saviour came into the world, (which no man living does, and it would be sinfull curiosity to enquire concerning it) it cannot be proved that it was on December 25. This Suarez was aware of: And therefore he coufesseth that if we suppose Christ to be born before mid∣night, not the 25, but the 24 of December should be cele∣brated in honour of his Nativity. To conclude (as Torniellus does) that Christ was born a little past Midnight, or (as others say) on the same day of the week, and the same hour of the day in which Adam was created, are curious and bold specu∣lations

which cannot be justified. As for the Astrologers (such as Petrus de Aliaco, Cusanus, Gauricus, Cardan, and some more lately) who by their Horoscopes and Calculations have under∣taken to declare the day and hour of Christs birth, their attempt is justly charged with not only Vanity but Impiety. A late learned l 1.50 Astronomer (tho a Jesuite) acknowledges that such Pra∣ctices are not onely unprofitable, but highly Profane:

4. Tho the particular Day of Christs Nativity is now un∣known unto the world, yet it seems most probable that He was born in the latter End of September, or in the beginning of October. There hath been great Variety of Opinions a∣mongst Christians concerning the time of our Lords Nativity. Paulus de Middleburgo thinks it was on March 26. But the grounds he goeth on are weak. There were some of old (as Clemens Alexandrinus witnesseth) who believed it was on April 22. unto which opinion Temporarius seems to incline. Lydiat conjectures that the Nativity was on or near May 22. Dr. Petit m 1.51 thinks it was in the beginning of November. Thus we see that the Providence of God has kept the day secret from the knowledge of men; and it is in vain for any to deter∣mine the particular day. Nevertheless, as to the month, a pro∣bable Judgement may be made. The Great n 1.52 Scaliger, o 1.53 Calvisius, and L'Empereur p 1.54 conclude that it was in the latter end of September, or the beginning of October. And before them, Beroaldus, Wolfius and Hospinian were of that Judgement. And this suits well with what is recorded of the shepherds, Luke 2. 8. It is not probable that the Shepherds would be abroad watching their Flocks in the Depth of Win∣ter. The moneth of December is by Hesiod called Meis ka∣lepos probatois, And tho in Judaea the summer be hot, yet the winter is cold. Matth. 24. 20. Ps. 147. 17. But in Septem∣ber or October this might well be. * 1.55 Nor is it likely that Augustus should enjoyn all his Subjects throughout the whole Roman World to travel into their own cities in the midst of Winter, as he did at the Time when Christ was born. Luke 2. 1. Moreover, the Feast of Tabernacles, which signified the Incarnation of Christ, was in the seventh moneth. Inasmuch as the Passover typified Christs Death, he was crucified in that moneth. Why then may we not think that since the Feast of Tabernacles typified his Nativity, he was in that moneth born? There were also several other Festivals in that moneth, which might fitly type the Good Tidings of great joy that should be to all People by reason of Christs being born into the world at

that season af the Year. Likewise in the same moneth was th•• Ark by Solomon brought into the Temple.

From these considerations, some of the Jewish Rabbins (•• Midrash Ribba) have concluded that Messiah should be bo•• in Ethanim or Tisri, h. e. in the 7th Moneth. And Mr. Brough•• (in his Book called the Lords Family) o••serves that the Jew•• scoff at Christians for keeping the Feast of Christs Nativity •• 25. of December, saying that they place Christs Birth in t•• moneth of his Conception. And this Opinion has been confirme•• by the practice of the Church in Alexandria, who did of o•• (as q 1.56 Cyril Alexandrinus testifieth) keep the Feast of Joh•• Baptists nativity on the 28. of Pharmuth, h. e. the 23. of o•• April. And if Johns Birth was at that time of year, Christ must needs be in September, or October. I shall not insist •• the Argument urged by Scaliger & Calvisius (which so•• look upon as demonstrative) taken from the several course appointed for the Priests to Minister, because it depen•• much upon the testimony of Josephus, who does often mista•• in his relating of things. Nor is it certain that Christ was born the year of the world 3947. upon which Foundation the Sc••∣ligeran Argument is built. I shall onely add, that * 1.57 Chri•• was 30. years old when he entred upon his Publique Ministr•• Luc. 3. 23. And he continued preaching three years and a•• half, Dan. 9. 27. so that he lived 33 years and an half. A•• if so (dying at the time of the Passover in the first moneth his Birth must needs be in the latter End of September, or •• beginning of October.

By this it is appears that Christ-mass-Keepers speak the know not what, when they say on the 25 of December Thou hast given thy Son to be born this Day; and to use th•• expression several Dayes one after another, is absurd. A le••∣ned Man r 1.58 observes that when the Papists in their Post•• say of the Festival dedicated to the memory of this or th•• Saint, He was bora this day, such Festivals are Teachers •• Lies, like their graven Images. The like is to be affirm•• in this case. It is said of Jeroboam, that he ordained a Fe•• in the Eighth Moneth, on the 15 day of the Moneth, ev•• The Moneth that he had devised of his own Heart, 1 Kin•• 12, 33. So has the Jeroboam, of Rome ordained a Festival •• be kept on the 25th of the 10th Moneth, but it is the Moneth and the day which he has devised of his own Heart.

5. God in his Word has no where appointed Christians keep an Anniversary Holy-day in Commemoration of Christ Nativity. It is not a Work but a Word makes one Day more

Holy then another. There is no day of the Week, but some eminent Work of God has been done therein; but it does not therefore follow that every day must be kept as a Sabbath. The Lord Christ has appointed the first day of the Week to be perpetually observed in remembrance of his Re••urrection and Redemption. If more day•• then that had been needful, he would have appointed more. It is a deep Reflection on the Wisdom of Christ, to say, He has not appointed days enough for his own Honour, but he must be beholding to men for their Additions. The Old Waldenses witnessed against the observing of any Holidays, besides that which God in his Word hath Instituted. Calvin, Luther, Danaeus, Bucer, Farel, Viret, and other great Reformers, have wished that the Observation of all Holidays, except the Lords Day, were abolished. A Popish s 1.59 Writer complains that the Puritans in England were of the same mind. So was John Huss and Jerom of Prague long ago. And the Belgic Churches in their Synod, Anno 1578. The Apostle condemns the Observation of Jewish Festivals in these days of the New Testament, Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16. Much less may Christians state other days in their room. The Gospel has put an end to the difference of Days as well as of Meats. And neither the Pope nor the Church can make some Days Holy above others, no more then they can wake the use of some Meats to be Lawful or Unlawful, both which are expressly contrary to the Scripture. Rom. 14. 5, 6. All stated Holidays of mans inventing, are Breaches both of the Second and of the Fourth Command∣ment. A stated Religious Festival is a part of Instituted Worship. Therefore it is not in the Power of men, but God only, to make a Day Holy.

It has been by some pleaded, that Mordecai and Esther appointed the Days of Purim. This was objected by the Pa∣pists against the Waldenses many hundred years ago. And of latter time by Bellarmin, Servarius, Bonartus, and other Pa∣pists in their Writings against Protestants. And lately by the Prelates against the Non-Conformists. There are two an∣swers given by our Div••nes. 1. It cannot be proved that those Days of Purim were a Religious Pestival. Many t 1.60 Judici∣ous Authors take them to be no more then Days of Civil Re∣joycing. They are not called Holy Days of Purim; nor do we find that there was an Holy Convocation of the People enjoy∣ned on those Days. T••e present Jews do not look upon those Days as Holy; they spend them in Feasting, and in telling

merry Stories; and althô few of them do any servile work on those Days, yet u 1.61 they confess that servile labour is not pro∣hibited therein; so that it appears to be only a Political Feast, not unlike our 5th of November. 2. If we suppose them to be Religious Feasts, we have reason to conceive that they were not of meer Humane Institution. Dr. Whitaker thinks that Mordecai was Divinely inspired, or that some Prophet was sent to give orde•• about the Observation of these Days.

It is also objected. That Christ manifested his Approba∣tion of the Feast of Dedication, by his walking in the Porch of the Temple at that Time, John 10. 22, 23. And yet that Feast was made Anniversary by Judas Maccabaeus. But it is answered w 1.62 that Christ's walking there was no Ap∣probation of the Feast. Our Saviour might walk in the Porch of the Temple, and yet not approve all that was done there, at that time. Nor is there the least Evidence of Christ's going up to Jerusalem, that so he might keep that Feast, or that he was present at it as a Feast. When Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem before Pentecost, Act. 20. 16. it was not to keep that Feast, but for other Reasons. And undoubtedly, if the Feast of Dedication was a Tradition of the Elders, Christ, who was for Divine Institutions only in matters of Religion, never manifested his Approbation of it. When Solomon had built the Temple, he made a Feast at the Dedication of it, but he did not command that it should be stated and anniversary. The like is to be said of the second Temple in Ezra 6. 16. And therefore it may be questioned whether Judas Maccabaeus did not go beyond his Commission, when upon Repairing and Purifying of the Temple after its Defilement by Antiochus, he made it a Law that eight Days should be observed in a stated Anniversary way, to commemorate that Mercy. Some x 1.63 have truly observed, that the Jews in their declining times appointed several Fasts and Feasts which they had no warrant for out of Gods Word.

It is further alledged that the Jews did of themselves state a Fast on the Fifth Month, because of the Temple's being burnt in that Month, and another Fast in the Seventh Month, on account of Gedaliah's being then murthered, Zachar. 7. 5. Answer. But these were only Temporary and not Perpe∣tual Fasts. Nor did the Lord, when enquired of by th••m, manifest the least approbation of what they did, but rather the contrary.

6. Christmas Holidayes were at first invented and institut in compliance with the Pagan Festivals, of old observed at that very time of the Year. This y 1.64 Stuckius has fully cleared. And z 1.65 Hospinian speaketh judiciously, when he saith, that he doth not believe that they who first of all ob∣served the Feast of Christ's Nativity in the latter end of De∣cember, did it as thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian. Hence December was called Mensis Genialis, the Voluptuous Month. Whilst the Satur∣nalian Days lasted, the observers of them were wont to send Gifts one to another, which therefore Tertullian calls Sat••r∣nalitia, and Jerom giveth them the Name of Saturnalium Sportulae. The like is done by many in Christmas time. A∣gain, In the Saturnalian Days, Masters did wait on their Ser∣vants, as a 1.66 Macrobius and b 1.67 Athenaeus declare. Hence is that of Horace—Age Libertate Decembri. The Gen∣tiles called Saturns time the Golden Age, because in it there was no Servitude, in Commemoration whereof on his Festi∣val, Servants must be Masters. c 1.68 And that amongst Christmas-keepers in some parts of the World, there use to be such Masters of Misrule, is too well known. From these Considerations not only Protestant writers, but some Papists d 1.69 acknowledge that Christmas Holidays succeed the Old Saturnalia of the Heathen.

Now for Christians thus to practise, is against clear Scrip∣ture, which commands the Lords People not to learn the way of the Heathen, nor do after their manner, Jer. 10. 2. Lev. 20. 23. Ezek. 11. 12. To observe the Festivals of the Heathen, is one way of partaking with them in their Super∣stitions. Tertullian in his Book against Idolatry, (cap. 14.) expresseth himself after this manner, Shall we Christians who have nothing to do with the Festivals of the Jews, which were once of Divine Institution, Embrace the Satur∣nalia and Januaria of the Heathen? How do the Gentiles shame us? who are more true to their Religion than we are to ours. None of them will observe the Lords-Day for fear lest they should be Christians: And shall not we then by ob∣serving their Festivals, fear least we be made Ethnic's?

We might take notice of the Ethnicism of this Festival in another respect. It was the manner of the Gentiles to celebrate the Birth-days of their Princes and Patrons.

And in Imitation of them, Degenerating Christians thought good so far to symbolize with the Customs of the Nations, as to keep the Birth-day of Christ, whom they acknowledge to be their Lord and Soveraign.

7. The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that Festi∣val after such a manner as is highly dishonourable to the name of Christ. How few are there comparatively that spend those Holidays (as they are called) after an Holy manner. But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, in playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, in mad Mirth; Will Christ the holy Son of God be pleased with such Services? Just after this manner were the Saturnalia of the Heathen celebrated. Saturn was the Gaming God. And (as e 1.70 one saith) the Feast of Christ's Nativity is at∣tended with such Profaneness, as that it deserves the name of Saturns Mass, or of Bacchus his Mass, or if you will, the Devils Mass, rather than to have the Holy name of Christ put upon it. Mr. Perkins f 1.71 justly complains that, The Feast of Christ's Nativity (commonly so called) is not spent in praising God, but in Revelling, Dicing, Carding, Mask∣ing, Mumming, and in all Licencious Liberty for the most part, as though it were some Heathen Feast of Ceres or Bac∣chus * 1.72. And Latimer in one of his Sermons saith, That Men dishonour Christ more in the 12 Days of Christmas, than in all the 12 Months besides. Nor is it to be wondred at, if that Festival be accompanied wi•••• much Profaneness and Vanity, when the chief Pleaders for them (yea Dr. Ham∣mond g 1.73 himself) are not ashamed to justifie the playing at Cards as lawful for a Divertisement on Christmas Holy∣days. And is that the way to honour Christ? The Love-Feasts (though in themselves lawful) which began in the Apostles times, were wholly laid aside amongst Christians, because they had been an occasion of Riotous Abuses. There is much more reason to omit the Observation of Christmas Festivities, which have brought a Deluge of Profaneness up∣on the World. The Scandal of them calls for their Aboli∣tion. The School Doctors affirm rightly, h 1.74 Etiam Spi∣ritualia non-nec••ss〈…〉〈…〉 sunt fugienda, si ex iis Scandalum oritur. Things of an indifferent nature, when they become an occasion of Sin, should not at all be used.

CHAP. IV.

A Testimony against some other Superstitions. Concerning New-years-gifts. Candle∣mas. Shrove-Tuesday. The Vanity of making Cakes on such a Day. The Hea∣thenism and Barbarity of Cock Scalers. The Superstition of Dedicating Days to Saints. A Lamentation that ever things of this nature should be practised in New-England.

IT is a Custom amongst some, to send Gifts one to another on the First of January. These were by the Romans called Strenae. Amongst the Heathen of old, the First of January was a great Holiday, when they began their New Year, and worshipped their God Janus. And that in their New-years-gifts they intended some Honour to the Goddess a 1.75 Strenua, is manifested from the name; as also from the Practice of Tatius, who first began the Custom by gather∣ing some sacred Branches out of Strenua her Grove. I find that the Ancients (in special b 1.76 Tertullian and c 1.77 Jerom) have reprehended this Custom amongst Christians as a Paga∣nish Rite. That Boniface, whom some have called the Apo∣stle of Germany, when he reproved the Germ••ns for observ∣ing New-years-day after the manner of the Heathen, they ob∣jected to him, that it was so done in Rome; whereupon he wrote an Epistle to Pope Zachary, desiring that no such Paga∣nish Custom might be used amongst those that called themselves

Christians. In the Turonensian Synod, Anno 554. It was de∣clared, That such as observed the Kalends of January (h. e. New-years-day) should not be accounted Christians. In the Synod at Antisiodorum, this Custom is severely condemned. Yea, they call New-years-gifts Strenus Diaboli. And so does Alcuinus. Our famous Perkins, in an Epistle to the President and Fellows of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge, Condemns New-years-gifts as impious, because they are Consecrated with the Name of Janus.

Concerning Candlemass, besides that the Name has Su∣perstition written in the Forehead of it, I shall only add, that the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary d 1.78 was taken up in imitation of the Festival of the Goddess Fe∣brua, to whom Pagans did in the beginning of February of∣fer burning Tapers, as the Papists now offer to the Virgin Mary on this Day at Evening Candles. Let such as retain any of this Superstition, consider whether it be meet for Pro∣testants thus to Imitate Papists and Pagans. The like is to be affirmed of Shrove-Tuesday. It smells both of Popish and of Paganish Superstition. Why does it bear the Name of Shrove-Tuesday, but because on that Evening deluded Papists go to the Priest to be shrieved, or to make Auricular Con∣fession. The Italians e 1.79 call Shrove-Tuesday by the Name of Bacchanali. The Spaniards, Fiestas de Baco, and the French, Bacchanaleries, which shews that this Carnival comes in the room of the old Bacchanalia and Dionisia of the Gen∣tiles; and indeed is kept after the same manner, f 1.80 espe∣cially in some places. We see it is celebrated with the Observation of sundry Heathenish Vanities. When persons single out that Day to make Pancakes in, it is an Heathen∣ish Vanity. The Prophet Jeremy speaks of some that did knead their Dough to make Cakes to the Queen of Heaven, Jer. 7. 18. Shall Christians do any thing which shall look l••ke unto a Symbolizing with such Heathenism? The old Pagan Romans g 1.81 made little Cakes as a Sacrifice to their Gods, these they called Liba. And the Heathen Greeks made (Popana) Pancakes as an Offering to their Idols. Especially they did practise this at the time when they cele∣brated the Feast of Bacchus, which (as we have proved) was the Heathens Shrove-Tide. Arnobius h 1.82 of old did zealously testifie against this Heathenism. Quid Fritilla? Quid Affiria? Quid Gratilla? Quid Conspolium? Quid Cu∣bula? Whats the meaning (saith he) of your Pultises, of

your Pancakes, of your Friters, &c. And again, Quid cum Pultibus Deo sit, quid cum Libis? Do you think that God is pleased with your Superstitious Cakes?

Another Vanity attending Shrove-Tide, is that of Cock∣scaling. It is agreed amongst Ancient Historians, that Cocks were brought out of Persia into Greece. i 1.83 For which cause after Themistocles had obtained a notable victory over the Per∣sians, it was made a Law among the Athenians, that once in a year there should be a publick Cock-fight in Commemo∣ration of that Victory. If this were the worst, it were more tolerable, for there is nothing of a Religious Nature in it. But I find that the k 1.84 Cock because of his fighting Quality was by the Old Gentiles dedicated to Mars. Hence Aristophanes calls him (Areos neotton) Mars his Bird. And the Lacedaemonians were wont to sacrifice a Cock to their God Mars. Our fore-fathers the Saxons, called the Third Day of the week Tuesday, l 1.85 in Devotion to their great Father and Leader Tuisco, whom after his Death they Idolized. The Germans now m 1.86 call it Dings-dagh, h. e. the Fighting Day. The Old Romans, and from them the Italians, French, Spaniard, and others, have given it the Name of Mars his Day. Whe∣ther the practice of slaughtering Cocks on Tuesday, or Mars his Day, have not in it some of the old Idolatrous Hea∣thenism, let every Wise and Serious Christian judge. Be∣sides all this, to delight in tormenting dumb Creatures, and to make a sport of their Miseries, is great inhumanity, and a scandalous Violation of the Sixth Commandment. No Crea∣ture belonging to this World would ever have been misera∣ble, had not the Sin of Man caused it to be so. And the whole Creation groans to be delivered from that woful Va∣nity which Man has subjected it unto. Wherefore for Men to make sport with the Griefs and Dolours of miserable Creatures, is such Barbarism, as a truly Christian Heart can∣not but abhor. Such Cruelty is more suitable to be acted in the Bloody Theaters of Pagans, then to be seen in the Streets amongst men that call themselves Christians. I re∣member a serious Passage mentioned in the Life of that wor∣thy Minister Mr. John Machin, &c. He on a time meeting some young men that were going to a Cock-fighting, said to one of them, n 1.87 Friends, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, never came into the World to set up such sports as these. Which words struck like an Arrow in the Heart of that young man, and the issue was, that he repented, and

there was a blessed change in his whole course of life. If the writing of these things shall have the like Effect on any Reader, my Labour will not be lost. The Lord grant that it may be so. More I need not add on this Subject, only that I find in the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France, Cap. 14. Artic. 18. that the keeping of Shrove-Tuesday is expresly forbidden.

Concerning the Dedication of Days to the honour of Saints departed, suppose Valentin, St. Matthias, or any other, we have not one Example in the Scripture to warrant such a Practice. The Lords People of old did not so. There was no Holiday appointed to the honour of Moses o•• J••shua, or any of the Prophets in the Church of Israel. Nor was there a Saints-day known amongst Christians, untill such time as the Antichristian Apostacy and Idolatry begun. Many learned men have proved by o 1.88 Testimonies out of the An∣cients, that the Superstition of consecrating Days to the Martyrs, was done in imitation of the Gentiles, who dedicated Days in Devotion to their Heroes, after their death, and Christians thought to bring the Heathens over to them, by appointing Festivals to the honour of Martyrs and other fa∣mous Saints. But this looks like worshipping Saints. And the Truth is, That the Superstition of praying to Saints de∣parted, came in with that of Instituting Days to their Ho∣nour. And the Arguments made use of by Protestants a∣gainst building Altars or Temples for the honour of Saints, are valid in this case. Religious worship is due to God only, Matth. 4. 10. Now that a Festival or Holiday is a part of Religious Worship, is not only by Protestants afferted, but by some Papists (in particular by p 1.89 Durandus and q 1.90 Bellarmin) acknowledged. How the Observers of such Days can wholly clear themselves from transgressing the Se∣cond Commandment, I confess my self unable to discern.

But my Design is not to enlarge on these things. What has been spoken may suffice for a Testimony against the im∣pleaded growing Evils. It is deeply to be lamented, that there should be any need to Preach or to Write against any such Vanities here in New-England. I can remember the time, when for many years, not so much as one of all these Superstitious Customs was known to be practised in this Land. They are good no where; but in New-England they are a thousand times worse than in another place. Upon which account, there is sad cause to expect, that it will not

be long before the Holy God will reveal his Displeasure from Heaven against them. This has been Immanuels Land. New-England was and ever ought to be a Land of Ʋprightness. But shall men do such things in a Land of Uprightness, where the Word of God, and the Ministers of God have taught them better? Is it no Provocation to Defile the Lord's Land? To my knowledge, the first Generation of Christi∣ans came into this Wilderness with hopes that their Posterity here would never be corrupted with such vain Customs. Ask such of the old Standers as are yet living, if it were not so. And the Printed ‡ 1.91 Labours of sundry the most Eminent of the Fathers in these Churches, do in part declare it. But alas! that so many of the Present Generation have so early corrupted their doings! Methinks I hear the Lord speaking to New-England as once to Israel; I planted thee a Noble Vine, wholly a Right Seed; How then art thou turned into the Degenerate Plant of a Strange Vine unto me!

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Lib. 1. Cap. 5. p. 39.
• b 1.2

  De Tempore, Serm. 131.
• c 1.3

  V. A∣then. Dipb∣nosoph. ••. 2. Cap. 1. O∣laus Mag∣nus, L••b. 13. Cap. 37. Alex∣ander ab Alex. Gen. Dier. l. 5. c. 21. Bu••∣linger de Convivi••s, l. 3. c. 34. Demster. Anti{que} lib. 5. cap. 30.
• d 1.4

  In quo vadis. •••• Sect. 21. p. 685.
• ‡ 1.5

  Lege Voctium de Santeis.
• e 1.6

  Jarchi. V. Medi o∣pera f. 483.
• f 1.7

  Voetum Disp. Sel. part. 4. ubi de Senteis p. 500. Matene∣sius p. 58.
• g 1.8

  In Conviv. septem Sa∣pientum.
• h 1.9

  de E∣brietate.
• i 1.10

  Mate∣nesius ••bi supr. c. 8.
• k 1.11

  Cas. Consc. l. 3. c. 16.
• l 1.12

  Gaugn∣nius de R••∣bus Polon.
• m 1.13

  Owen part. 1. l. 2. Epig. 42.
• n 1.14

  Voeti∣us ubi supr. p. 500 ex Bus∣chio.
• o 1.15

  Mate∣nesius L. 1. C. 10.
• p 1.16

  Beat. Rhenan-Rerum German. Lib. 2.
• q 1.17

  Citan∣te Mate∣nesio p. 3.
• r 1.18

  de Le∣gibus Lib. 2. propè finem.
• s 1.19

  Horat. Serm. Lib. 2. Sat. 6.
• t 1.20

  In his Healths Sickness, p. 40, 41. And in his Histrio∣mastix. passim.
• u 1.21

  See ••is Life, p. 9
• w 1.22

  In his Directions for walk∣ing with God, pag. 205.
• x 1.23

  Citan∣te Voetio Di••p. v. 4. p. 513.
• y 1.24

  Dicente Athen••••.
• z 1.25

  Came∣rar. c. 12. Cent. 12.
• a 1.26

  Clem. Alex. Pae∣dag. l. 2. c. 2.
• a 1.27

  In lo∣cum
• b 1.28

  Cases of Conscien∣ces. p. 163.
• c 1.29

  Mr. Morton a∣gainst the Gaming humour, p. 14.
• d 1.30

  Ignati∣us Lopez.
• e 1.31

  Lib. 3. Cap. 11.
• f 1.32

  Homil. 6. in Mat.
• g 1.33

  Ep••st. de Aleatori∣bus.
• h 1.34

  De To∣bia. p. 590.
• i 1.35

  Epist. 119.
• k 1.36

  In ca∣sibus lib. 4. c. 4. Casu 10.
• l 1.37

  Gataker of Lots, p. 267.
• x 1.38

  V. Ga∣g•• survey of Wes•• In∣dies. p. 282 283. ••a. 3.
• m 1.39

  Bern.
• a 1.40

  Cent. 2.
• b 1.41

  Lib. 5. c. cap. 22.
• c 1.42

  Voetius in ••sput. de Nativ. Christi. p. 22.
• d 1.43

  Contra Conc. Trid. part. 4 de Festis. p. 262.
• e 1.44

  So the Rhemists.
• f 1.45

  Stro∣mat. lib. 1. p. 249.
• g 1.46

  In E∣sther. 2.
• h 1.47

  In The∣atro Terrae Sanctae. In Descript. Tribus Benjamin, numb. 63. v. C. a La∣pide in Sy∣rac. 24. 18.
• i 1.48

  De Plantis terrae San∣ctae.
• k 1.49

  Dr. Brown vulgar Er∣rors p. 99 100. Edit. 1.
• l 1.50

  Riccio∣li in Al∣magest. p. prsterior. eom. 1. l. 8. Sect. 2. cap. 20.
• m 1.51

  In Chronol. l. 1. cap. 13.
• n 1.52

  De E∣mendat. Temp. l. 5.
• o 1.53

  In Chronol. Isag. c. 47.
• p 1.54

  In Scho∣l•• is ad Iar∣chiaden ia Dan. 9.
• * 1.55

  W••k∣phius de Tempore p. 81, 82.
• q 1.56

  Hamil∣ins Natal. Domini.
• * 1.57

  Sic ar∣gument at. Beroald.
• r 1.58

  Voetius in Disp. de Fest is. pag. 1302.
• s 1.59

  Fits-Simeon in Britano∣machâ, l. 2. c. 7.
• t 1.60

  Sic Ju∣nius. Et a∣lii. V. Re∣laspy of En∣glish. Po∣pish Cere∣monies, p. 55.
• u 1.61

  Bux∣torf. Synag. Jud. c. 24. p. 430.
• w 1.62

  See Mr. Caw∣drey of Holidays in answer to Dr. Ham∣mond, p. 418. &c.
• x 1.63

  Weems vol. 1. cap. 3. p. 60.
• y 1.64

  De An∣tiq. Con∣viv. p. 133.
• z 1.65

  De O∣rigine Festorum Christ.
• a 1.66

  Satur∣nal. lib. 1.
• b 1.67

  Lib. 14.
• c 1.68

  V. Rai∣nold. Lect. libr. Apoc. p. 1346. Stuckius Antiq. Conviv. p. 131.
• d 1.69

  P. Jo∣vius Hi∣stor. L. 38. Polydor. Virgil. de Rerum In∣ventoribus L. 5. c. 2.
• e 1.70

  Prin. Histrio∣mastix, •• 759.
• f 1.71

  In his Expositi∣on of the Creed.
• * 1.72

  See Ga∣taker of Lots, p. 238.
• g 1.73

  In his Answer to Mr. Caw∣drey, p. 274.
• h 1.74

  Sic Bannes & Cajetan.
• a 1.75

  V. Au∣stin de C••∣vit. Dei▪ L. 4. cap. 11. & 16. Stuckius A〈…〉〈…〉 Conv•••• p. 132.
• b 1.76

  De I∣dol. cap. 14.
• c 1.77

  In E∣phes.
• d 1.78

  V. Hos∣pinian. de fest. Chri∣stianorum p. 33.
• e 1.79

  See Minshews Guide in∣to the Tongues.
• f 1.80

  V. His∣pinian. ubi supra, p. 37, 38. Stuckius Antiq. Conviv. p. 129.
• g 1.81

  Stucki∣us de Sa∣crificiis Gentilium p. 50. Pollux, Lib. 6.
• h 1.82

  Lib. 7.
• i 1.83

  Aelian. Histor. L. 2. c. 28. Demster, Rom. An∣tiq. Lib. 3. cap. 10.
• k 1.84

  Stuc∣kius ubi supra. p. 47.
• l 1.85

  See Verste∣gan's An∣tiquities p. 57.
• m 1.86

  Vide Minshew in Libro supra ci∣tato.
• n 1.87

  See Mr. Clarkes last Vo∣lumn of Lives, p. 92.
• o 1.88

  Rivet summae contro∣vers. Tract. 2. quaest. 16.
• p 1.89

  Ratio∣nale Di∣vin. l. 4. c. 39.
• q 1.90

  De Cul∣tu Sancte∣rum, l. 4. cap. 16.
• ‡ 1.91

  See Mr. Wil∣sons Ser∣mon on Jer. 29. 8. p. 6, 8, 9. And Mr. Nortons Sermon on Jer. 30. 17. p. 12, 13.