A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…

CHAP. IX.

Showing the weakness of some pretences which our Opposites use for Holy-days.

Shewing the weaknesse of some pretences which our Opposites use for Holy-dayes.

Since it hath been evinced by unanswerable reasons, that Sect. I Holy-days, as now urged upon us, take away our Christian liberty, I will now pull off them, the coat of some fig leaves wherewith they are trimmed up. And first, I hope it will appear, to how small purpose ^sDr Davenant would conciliate his readers mind to allow of the Churches ordinances about Holy-days, (peradventure because he saw all that he had said of that purpose to be too invalid proof,) by six Cautions, whereby all superstition and abuse, which may ensue upon them, may be shunned. For, whatsoever doth manifestly endanger mens souls, being a thing not necessary in it self, at which they take occasion of superstitious abuse, should rather be removed altogether out of the way, then be set about with a weak and easily penetrable hedge of some quidditative Cautions, which the ruder sort do always, and the learned do too oft, either not understand or not remember. Now ^tB. Lindsey confesseth and puts it out of all doubt, that when the set times of these Solemnities return, superstitious conceits are most pregnant in the heads of people; therefore it must be the safest course to banish those days out of the Church, since there is so great hazard and no necessity of retaining them.

SInce it hath beene evinced by unanswearable reasons, that Sect. I Holy-dayes, as now urged upon us, take away our Christian liberty, I will now pull off them, the coat of some figge leaves wherewith they are trimmed up. And first, I hope it will appeare, to how small purpose ^sDr Davenant would conciliate his readers minde to allow of the Churches ordinances about Holy-dayes, (peradventure because he saw all that he had said of that purpose to be too invalide proofe,) by sixe Cautions, whereby all superstition and abuse, which may ensue upon them, may be shunned. For, whatsoever doth manifestly indanger mens soules, being a thing not necessary in it selfe, at which they take occsiaon of superstitious abuse, should rather be removed altogither out of the way, then be set about with a weak and easily penetrable hedge of some quidditative Cautions, which the ruder sort doe alwayes, and the learned doe too oft, either not understand or not remember. Now ^tB. Lindsey confesseth and puts it out of all doubt, that when the set times of these Solemnities returne, superstitious conceats are most pregnant in the heads of people; therefore it must be the safest course to banish those dayes out of the Church, since there is so great hazard and no necessity of retaining them.

1. scome. in Col. 2. 16.com. in Col. 2. 16.
2. tubi supra pag. 7.

What they can allege for holy-days, from our duty to remember the inestimable benefits of our redemption, and to praise God for the same, ^uhath been already answered. And as touching any expediency which they imagine in Holy-days, we shall see to that ^xafterward.

What they can alleadge for holy-dayes, from our duty to remember the inestimable benefits of our redemption, and to praise God for the same, ^uhath been already answeared. And as touching any expediency which they imagine in Holy-dayes, we shall see to that ^xafterward.

1. usupra c. 7. sect. 7.
2. xInfra. part. 2. c. 2.

The act of Perth A ssembly, allegeth the practise of the ancient Sect. II Church for warrant of Holy-days, ^yand Tilen allegeth the judgement of antiquity to the same purpose. Ans. The Festivities of the Ancient Church can not warrant ours, for, 1. In the purest times of the Church here was no Law to tie men to the observation of Holy-dayes. Observandum est ^zsay the divines of Magdeburg, ⟨p. 32⟩Apostolos & apostolicos viros, neque de pashate neque de aliis quibuscunque festivatibus legem aliquam constituisse. Socrates ^areporteth, that men did Celebrate the Feast of Easter, and other Festival days, Sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam. Nicephorus ^bsaith, that men did celebrate Festivities, sicuti cuique visum erat, in regionibus passim ex consuetudine quadam per traditionem accepta adducti. In which place, as the reader will plainly perceive, he opposeth tradition to an Evangelical or Apostolical ordinance. ^cSozomen tells us, that men were left to their own judgement about the keeping of Easter, ^dHierome saith of the Feasts, which the Church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate regionum diversa. ^eThe first who established a Law about any Festival day, is thought to have been Pius 1. Bishop of Rome, yet it is marked, that the Asiatican Doctors, did not care much for this constitution of Pius. I conclude with ^fCartwright, that those Feasts of the Primitive Church came by custom, and not by commandment, by the free choice of men, and not by constraint. So that from these, no commendation ariseth to our Feasts▪ which are not only established by Laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoileth us of our liberty; 2. The festival days observed by the Ancient Church, were not accounted more excellent then other days: for faith ^gHierome, non quod celebrior sit dies illa qua convenimus, &c. But our festival days are made aliis diebus celebriores, yea are taken to be holier then other days, as I will ^hafterwards prove.

The act of Perth A ssembly, alleadgeth the practise of the auncient Sect. II Church for warrant of Holy-dayes, ^yand Tilen alledgeth the judgement of antiquity to the same purpose. Ans. The Festivities of the Auncient Church can not warrant ours, for, 1. In the purest times of the Church here was no Law to tie men to the observation of Holy-dayes. Observandum est ^zsay the divines of Maldeburge, ⟨p. 32⟩Apostolos & apostolicos viros, neque de pashate neque de aliis quibuscunque festivatibus legem aliquam constituisse. Socrates ^areporteth, that men did Celebrat the Feast of Easter, and other Festivall dayes, Sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam. Nicephorus ^bsaith, that men did celebrat Festivities, sicuti cuique visum erat, in regionibus passim ex consuetudine quadam per traditionem accepta adducti. In which place, as the reader will plainly perceave, he opposeth tradition to an Evangelicall or Apostolicall ordinance. ^cSozomen tells us, that men were left to their owne judgement about the keeping of Easter, ^dHierome saith of the Feasts, which the Church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate regionum diversa. ^eThe first who established a Law about any Festivall day, is thought to have beene Pius 1. Bishop of Rome, yet it is marked, that the Asiatican Doctors, did not care much for this constitution of Pius. I conclude with ^fCartwright, that those Feasts of the Primitive Church came by custome, and not by commandement, by the free choice of men, and not by constraint. So that from these, no commendation ariseth to our Feasts▪ which are not only established by Lawes, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoyleth us of our liberty; 2. The festivall dayes observed by the Auncient Church, were not accounted more excellent then other dayes: for faith ^gHierome, non quod celebrior sit dies illa qua convenimus, &c. But our festivall dayes are made aliis diebus celebriores, yea are taken to be holyer then other dayes, as I wil ^hafterwards prove.

1. yParaen. ad Scot. cap. 16. pag 65.
2. zCent. 2. cap. 6. col. 119.
3. alib. 5. cap 22.
4. blib. 12. cap. 32.
5. clib. 7. cap. 19.
6. din Gal. 4.
7. eHospin. de orig. fest. Christ. p. 71.
8. fannot. on Math. 15. 9.
9. gubi supra
10. hpart. 3.

Moreover, the Proctors for holy-days among us, think to make Sect. III advantage of the practise of other reformed Churches, and the judgement of Modern Divines. But we are to consider, 1. As they have the example of some Churches for them, so we have the example of other Churches for us for the Church of Geneva in Savoy, and the Church of Strasburg in Germany did abolish Festival days, as ⁱCalvin writteth. Yea, In hac tota provincia aboliti fuerunt dies Festi, saith he. The Church of Zurich in Helvetia did also banish them all away, as ⁱBullinger writeth to Calvin. 2. The practise of the greatest part of the reformed Churches in observing Holy-days can not commend them in the Church of Scotland. 1. Because she did spue them out with so great detestation, that she is more bound to abhor them, then other Churches which did not the like, and I may well apply to them that which ^kCalvin saith of the Ceremonies of the Interim, to Valentinus Pacaeut. Ut concedam faetidas illas sordes quibus •purgatae fuerunt vestrae Ecclesiae, in rebus mediis posse censeri: earum tamen restitutio eritne res media? 2. The Church of Scotland is tied yet with another bond, to hate Holy-days, of which other Churches are free; for by a solemn oath sworn to the God of Heaven, she hath abjured all Antichristian and Popish Rites, and dedicating of days particularly. When (i) Tilen would make answer to this Argument, ⟨p. 33⟩⁴he saith, that mens consciences should not be snared with rash oaths, and superstitious vows, and if that such bonds be laid on, they should be broken and shaken of. What? calls he this a superstitious vow, which abjured all superstition and superstitious Rites? or calls he this a rash oath, which upon so sage and due deliberation, so serious advisement, so pious intention, so decent preparation, so great humiliation, was religiously, publicly, solemnly sworn throughout this Land, & that at the strait command of Authority? who is ignorant of these things, except he be a stranger in our Israel? But say the oath had been rash and temerarious, shall it not therefore oblige? his Judgement is, it doth not. And so thinks the ^mB. of Winchester, who teacheth us, that if the oath be made rashly, paenitenda promissio non perficienda praesumptio; he had said better thus paenitenda praesumptio, perficienda promissio.

Moreover, the Proctors for holy-dayes among us, thinke to make Sect. III advantage of the practise of other reformed Churches, and the judgement of Moderne Divines. But we are to consider, 1. As they have the example of some Churches for them, so we have the example of other Churches for us for the Church of Genevah in Savoy, and the Church of Strasburge in Germany did abolish Festivall dayes, as ⁱCalvine writteth. Yea, In hac tota provincia aboliti fuerunt dies Festi, saith he. The Church of Zurich in Helvetia did also banish them all away, as ⁱBullinger writeth to Calvine. 2. The practise of the greatest part of the reformed Churches in observing Holy-dayes can not commend them in the Church of Scotland. 1. Because she did spue them out with so great detestation, that she is more bound to abhorre them, then other Churches which did not the like, and I may well apply to them that which ^kCalvine saith of the Ceremonies of the Interim, to Valentinus Pacaeut. Vt concedam faetidas illas sordes quibus •purgatae fuerunt vestrae Ecclesiae, in rebus mediis posse censeri: earum tamen restitutio eritne res media? 2. The Church of Scotland is tied yet with another bond, to hate Holy-dayes, of which other Churches are free; for by a solemne oath sworne to the God of Heaven, she hath abjured all Antichristian and Popish Rites, and dedicating of dayes particularly. When (i) Tilen would make answeare to this Argument, ⟨p. 33⟩⁴he saith, that mens consciences should not be snared with rash oaths, and superstitious vowes, and if that such bonds be laid on, they should be broken and shaken of. What? calls he this a superstitious vowe, which abjured all superstition and superstitious Rites? or calls he this a rash oath, which upon so sage and due deliberation, so serious advisment, so pious intention, so decert preparation, so great humiliation, was religiously, publikly, solemnely sworne throughout this Land, & that at the strait command of Auctority? who is ignorant of these things, except he be a stranger in our Israell? But say the oath had been rashe and temerarious, shall it not therefore oblige? his Iudgement is, it doth not. And so thinks the ^mB. of Winchester, who teacheth us, that if the oath be made rashly, paenitenda promissio non perficienda praesumptio; he had said better thus paenitenda praesumptio, perficienda promissio.

1. iJo Calv. epist. & resp. edit Genev. an. 1617. col. 137.Io Calv. epist. & resp. edit Genev. an. 1617. col. 137.
2. iIbid. 138.
3. kib col. 119.
4. 4(l) paraen c. 16. pag. 68.
5. mSerm. on Jer. 4. 2.Serm. on Ier. 4. 2.

For was not that a very rash oath which the Princes of Israel did swear to the Gibeonites, not asking Counsel at the mouth of the Lord? Jos. 9. 14. 15. 16. yet it bound both them, Jos. 9. 19. and their posterity some hundred years after, 2 Sam. 21. 1. if the matter then be lawful, the oath binds, were it sworn never so rashly.

For was not that a very rash oath which the Princes of Israel did sweare to the Gibeonites, not asking Counsell at the mouth of the Lord? Ios. 9. 14. 15. 16. yet it bound both them, Ios. 9. 19. and their posterity some hundreth yeares after, 2 Sam. 21. 1. if the matter then be lawfull, the oath binds, were it sworne never so rashly.

As touching the judgement of Divines, we say, 1. many Divines Sect. IV disallow of Festival days, and wish the Church were free of them. For the Belgic Churches in their Synod anno 1578. Wished, that the six days might be wrought upon, and that the Lords day alone might be celebrated. And Luther in his book de bonis operibus wished, that there were no Feast days among Christians but the Lords day. This wish of theirs declareth plainly, that they allowed of no Holy day except the Lords day; yet B Lindsey must make a fashion of saying something for an answer. This wish ⁿ(saith he) Luther & the Belgic Churches conceived, out of their miscontentment at the number, corruptions, & superstitions, of the Festival days beside the Lords day, as ye do. Aus. 1. Their wish importeth a simple and absolute misliking of all Festival days besides the Lords day, and not of their number, and corruptions only. 2. It is well, that he acknowledgeth both them and us to have reason of miscontentment at Holy-days, from their corruptions and superstitions. The old Waldenses also ^o(whose Doctrine was restored and propagated by John Huss, and Hierome of Prague after Wycliffe, and that with the congratulation of the Church of Constantinople) ^pheld, that they were to rest from labour upon no day, but upon the Lords day. Whereby it appeareth, that Holy-days have had adversaries before us. I find, that they pervert some places which they allege against us out of Calvin. ^qTilen allegeth Calvin. Inst. l. 2. c. 8. §. 32. acknowledging alios quoque dies festos praeter Dominicum, &c. I marvel, how a judicious Reader could imagine such a thing to be in that place, for both in that and the subsequent ⟨p. 34⟩section, he is speaking of the Lords day against the Anabaptists, and if any man will think, that §. 32. he is speaking of holy assemblies of Christians in the general, yet he can see nothing there of any Festival days beside the Lords day dedicated to holy meetings. There is an other place of Calvin abused by ^rBishop Spotswood, and ^sB. Lindsey, taken out of one of his epistles to Hallerus: which I find in the volume before quoted, pag. 136. 137.

As touching the judgement of Divines, we say, 1. many Divines Sect. IV dissalowe of Festivall dayes, and wish the Church were free of them. For the Belgike Churches in their Synod anno 1578. Wished, that the sixedayes might be wrought upon, and that the Lords day alone might be celebrated. And Luther in his book de bonis operibus wished, that there were no Feast dayes among Christians but the Lords day. This wish of theirs declareth plainly, that they allowed of no Holy day except the Lords day; yet B Lindsey must make a fashion of saying something for an answear. This wish ⁿ(saith he) Luther & the Belgike Churches conceived, out of their miscontentment at the number, corruptions, & superstitions, of the Festivall dayes beside the Lords day, as ye doe. Aus. 1. Their wish importeth a simple and absolute misliking of all Festiyall dayes besides the Lords day, and not of their number, and corruptions onely. 2. It is well, that he acknowledgeth both them and us to have reason of miscontentment at Holy-dayes, from their corruptions and superstitions. The old Waldenses also ^o(whose Doctrine was restored and propagated by Iohn Husse, and Hierome of Prauge after Wikliffe, and that with the congratulation of the Church of Constantinople) ^pheld, that they were to rest from labour upon no day, but upon the Lords day. Whereby it appeareth, that Holy-dayes have had adversaries before us. I finde, that they pervert some places which they alleadge against us out of Calvine. ^qTilen alleadgeth Calvin. Inst. l. 2. c. 8. §. 32. aknowledging alios quoque dies festos praeter Dominicum, &c. I marvell, how a judicious Reader could imagine such a thing to be in that place, for both in that and the subsequent ⟨p. 34⟩section, he is speaking of the Lords day against the Anabaptists, and if any man will thinke, that §. 32. he is speaking of holy assemblies of Christians in the generall, yet he can see nothing there of any Festivall dayes beside the Lords day dedicated to holy meetings. There is an other place of Calvine abused by ^rBishop Spotswood, and ^sB. Lindsey, taken out of one of his epistles to Hallerus: which I finde in the volume before quoted, pag. 136. 137.

1. nubi supra pag. 84.
2. oAlsted. in Chronol. testium veritatis.
3. pAen. Silv. apud Didocl. alt. Damasc. pag. 707.
4. qParaen. cap. 16. pag. 64.
5. rSerm at Petth. Assemb.
6. subi supra pag. 83.

that which they gripe to in this Epistle, is, that Calvin, speaking of the abrogation of Festival days in Geneva, saith, hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc constitutum est, non fuisse pro sententia dicturum. Ans. That which made Calvin say so, was not any liking which he had to Festival days, for he ^tcalls the abolishing of them ordo been compositus. But as himself showeth in the following Epistle which beareth this title. Call. Ministro Burensi, S. D. The reason, why he durst scarcely have so determined, if his judgement had been required, was, because he saw neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raised about Festival days, and likely to impede the course of Reformation, therefore fovendae pacis studio, he professeth, that he durst not make mention of the abrogation of those Holy-days. Because he would have tolerated Holy-days, because he durst not at that time, and as the case then stood, have spoken of the abolishing them, can it be hereupon concluded, that he allowed of them? No sure. But it is observable, how both these Prelates pervert Calvins words. B. Spotswood allegeth his words anent the abolishing of these Festival days, thus: Ego neque suasor neque impulsor fui, atque hoc testatum volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. Whereas the words in that Epistle lie thus, ego tametsi neque suasor neque impulfor fui, sic tamen accidisse non moleste fero. Quod si statum nostrae Ecclesiae aeque compertum haberes, non dubitares meo judicio subscribere. Hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. The B. would have made his hearers believe, that Calvin was not content with the abolishing of the festival days, whereas his words testify the very contrary. B. Lindsey is as gross in perverting the end of that Epistle. Nec tamen est cur homines adeo exasperentur, si libertate nostra ut Ecclesiae edificatio postulat utimur, &c. from which words he concludes, that in Calvins judgement the observation and abrogation of those days, is in the power and liberty of the Church.

that which they gripe to in this Epistle, is, that Calvine, speaking of the abrogation of Festivall dayes in Geneva, saith, hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc constitutum est, non fuisse pro sententia dicturum. Ans. That which made Calvine say so, was not any liking which he had to Festivall dayes, for he ^tcals the abolishing of them ordo bene compositus. But as himselfe sheweth in the following Epistle which beareth this title. Cal. Ministro Burensi, S. D. The reason, why he durst scarcely have so determined, if his judgement had been required, was, because he saw neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raised about Festivall dayes, and likely to impede the course of Reformation, therefore fovendae pacis studio, he professeth, that he durst not make mention of the abrogation of those Holy-dayes. Because he would have tolerated Holy-dayes, because he durst not at that time, and as the case then stood, have spoken of the abolishing them, can it be hereupon concluded, that he allowed of them? No sure. But it is observable, how both these Prelates pervert Calvins words. B. Spotswood alledgeth his words anent the abolishing of these Festivall dayes, thus: Ego neque suasor neque impulsor fui, atque hoc testatum volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. Whereas the words in that Epistle lie thus, ego tametsi neque suasor neque impulfor fui, sic tamen accidisse non moleste fero. Quod si statum nostrae Ecclesiae aeque compertum haberes, non dubitares meo judicio subscribere. Hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. The B. would have made his hearers believe, that Calvine was not content with the abolishing of the festivall dayes, whereas his words testify the very contrary. B. Lindsey is as grosse in perverting the end of that Epistle. Nec tamen est cur homines adeo exasperentur, si libertate nostra ut Ecclesiae edificatio postulat utimur, &c. from which words he concludes, that in Calvines judgement the observation and abrogation of those dayes, is in the power and liberty of the Church.

1. tibid. pag. 138.

But the reader will perceive, that Calvin there speaketh only of the Churches liberty to abrogate Holy days, and no thing of her power to observe them, for he is showing that howbeit he durst not have given advise to abolish them, if the decision had been referred to him, yet they had no reason for them who were offended at the abolishing of them in Geneva, because that Church had done no more then she had power and liberty to do for edification, 3. Other Testimonies they produce, which can not help them much. That which ^uB. Lindsey allegeth out of ⟨p. 35⟩Zanchius his confession, maketh him but small advantage, for though Zanchius there alloweth of the sanctification of some Festival days, yet writing on the fourth Commandment, he acknowledgeth that it is more agreeable to the first institution, and to the writings of the Apostles, that one day of the week only be sanctified. What meant the ^xB. to say, that this place is falsified & mutilated by his Antagonist? who quotes it not to prove that Zanchius disallowed of Festival days, but to prove that in Zanchius his judgement, the sanctification of the Sabbath only, & no other day in the week, agreeth best with Divine and Apostolical institution: was there any need to allege more of Zanchius his words then concerned the point which he had to prove? ^ythe B. allegeth also a Testimony out of Perkins on Gal. 4. 10. which makes him but very little help: For albeit Perkins thought good, in some sort to excuse the observing of days, in his own mother Church of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He complaineth that the greatest part respects those Holy-days more then they should. 2. He alloweth only the observing of days for orders sake, that men may come to the Church to hear Gods Word: which respect will not be enough to the B. if there be not a solemnizing & celebrating of the memory of some of Gods inestimable benefits, and a dedicating of the day to this end & purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the privilege of God to appoint an extraordinary day of rest: so that he permitteth not power to the Church, for appointing a set, constant, and anniversary day of rest, for such a day becometh an ordinary day of rest. 4.

But the reader will perceave, that Calvine there speaketh only of the Churches liberty to abrogate Holy dayes, and no thing of her power to observe them, for he is shewing that howbeit he durst not have given advise to abolish them, if the decision had been referred to him, yet they had no reason for them who were offended at the abolishing of them in Geneva, because that Church had done no more then she had power and liberty to doe for edification, 3. Other Testimonies they produce, which can not help them much. That which ^uB. Lindsey alledgeth out of ⟨p. 35⟩Zanchius his confession, maketh him but small advantage, for though Zanchius there alloweth of the sanctification of some Festivall dayes, yet writing on the fourth Commandement, he aknowledgeth that it is more agreeable to the first institution, and to the writings of the Apostles, that one day of the week only be sanctified. What meant the ^xB. to say, that this place is falsified & mutilated by his Antagonist? who quotes it not to prove that Zanchius dissallowed of Festivall dayes, but to prove that in Zanchius his judgement, the sanctification of the Sabbath only, & no other day in the week, agreeth best with Divine and Apostolicall institution: was there any need to alledge more of Zanchius his words then concerned the point which he had to prove? ^ythe B. alledgeth also a Testimony out of Perkins on Gal. 4. 10. which makes him but very litle help: For albeit Perkins thought good, in some sort to excuse the observing of dayes, in his owne mother Church of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He complaineth that the greatest part respects those Holy-dayes more then they should. 2. He alloweth only the observing of dayes for orders sake, that men may come to the Church to heare Gods Word: which respect will not be enough to the B. if there be not a solemnizing & celebrating of the memory of some of Gods inestimable benefites, and a dedicating of the day to this end & purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the priviledge of God to appoint an extraordinary day of rest: so that he permitteth not power to the Church, for appointing a set, constant, and anniversary day of rest, for such a day becommeth an ordinary day of rest. 4.

1. uubi supra pag. 91.
2. xibid. pag. 41.
3. yibid. pag. 95.

He preferreth the practise of those Churches of the Protestants, who do not observe Holy-days, because (saith he,) the Church in the Apostles days, had no Holy-day beside the Lords day, and the fourth Commandment enjoins the labour of six days.

He preferreth the practise of those Churches of the Protestants, who doe not observe Holy-dayes, because (saith he,) the Church in the Apostles dayes, had no Holy-day beside the Lords day, and the fourth Commandement injoynes the labour of sixe dayes.

The B. meeteth with another answer in his Antagonist, which Sect. V crosseth his Testimonies, namely, that howsoever foreign Divines in their Epistles and Councils, spake some times sparingly against Holy-days, when their advise was sought of Churches newly risen out of Popery and greatly distressed, yet they never advised a Church to resume them, where they were removed. The ^zB. objecteth against this answer, that Calvin Epist. 51. adviseth the Monbelgardens not to contend against the Prince for not resuming (he should have said, for not receiving, if he had translated Calvins words faithfully) of all Festival days, but only such as served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious. Ans. 1. Albeit he spake sparingly against Holy days, when he gave advice to that distressed and lately reformed Church, jest the work of Reformation should habe been letted, yet he did not allow Holy-days among them. For in ^aanother Epistle written to them, he saith, De pulsu campanarum & diebus festis ita sentimus, ferendas-potius esse vobis has ineptias, quam stationem in ⟨p. 36⟩[…] ⟨p. 1⟩[…] ⟨p. 36⟩qua estis a domino collocati descrendam, modo ne approbetis; modo etiam liberum vobis sit reprehendere, quae inde sequentur superstitions; And this he setteth down for one of these superstitions, quod dies a die discernitur; where also he dondemneth both the observing of days to the honour of men as superstitious, and the observing of them for the honour of God as judaical. If holy days in Calvins judgement be fooleries; If he gave advice not to approve them; If he thought them occasions of superstition; If he held it superstition to distinguish one day from another, or to esteem one above another; If he call them Judaical, though kept to the honour of God; judge then what allowance they had from him. 2. If the B. stand to Calvins judgement in that place which he quoteth, he must allow us to refuse some Festival days though enjoined by the Prince. In festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic tamen ut non litigetis de quibuslibet. Then he allowed them to contend against some Holy-days, though the Prince imposed them. 3. The Church of Scotland did remove Festival days in another manner, and bound her self never to receive them, by another bond then ever the Monbelgardens did;

The B. meeteth with another answeare in his Antagonist, which Sect. V crosseth his Testimonies, namely, that howsoever forrain Divines in their Epistles and Councells, spake some times sparingly against Holy-dayes, when their advise was sought of Churches newly risen out of Popery and greatly distressed, yet they never advised a Church to resume them, where they were removed. The ^zB. objecteth against this answeare, that Calvine Epist. 51. adviseth the Monbelgardens not to contend against the Prince for not resuming (he should have said, for not receiving, if he had translated Calvines words faithfully) of all Festivall dayes, but only such as served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious. Ans. 1. Albeit he spake sparingly against Holy dayes, when he gave advice to that distressed and lately reformed Church, iest the worke of Reformation should habe been letted, yet he did not allow Holy-dayes among them. Fot in ^aanother Epistle written to them, he saith, De pulsu campanarum & diebus festis ita sentimus, ferendas-potius esse vobis has ineptias, quam stationem in ⟨p. 36⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 1⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 36⟩qua estis a domino collocati descrendam, modo ne approbetis; modo etiam liberum vobis sit reprehendere, quae inde sequentur superstitiones; And this he setteth downe for one of these superstitions, quod dies a die discernitur; where also he dondemneth both the observing of dayes to the honour of men as superstitious, and the observing of them for the honour of God as judaicall. If holy dayes in Calvines judgement be foolries; If he gave advyce not to approve them; If he thought them occasions of superstition; If he held it superstition to distinguish one day from another, or to esteeme one above another; If he call them Iudaicall, though kept to the honour of God; judge then what allowance they had from him. 2. If the B. stand to Calvines judgement in that place which he quotteth, he must allow us to refuse some Festivall dayes though injoyned by the Prince. In festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic tamen ut non litigetis de quibuslibet. Then he allowed them to contend against some Holy-dayes, though the Prince imposed them. 3. The Church of Scotland did remove Festivall dayes in another manner, and bound her selfe never to receave them, by another bond then ever the Monbelgardens did;

1. zubi supra pag. 83.
2. aJo. Calv. epist. & resp. col. 592.Io. Calv. epist. & resp. col. 592.

so that having other bonds lying upon us, then other Churches have, we are so much the more straitly obliged, neither to receive Holy-days, nor any other Antichristian and Popish Ceremony.

so that having other bonds lying upon us, then other Churches have, we are so much the more straitly obliged, neither to receave Holy-dayes, nor any other Antichristian and Popish Ceremony.