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. VII.

That which hath been said against all the controverted Ceremonies Sect. I in general, I will now instance of Festival days in particular; and prove both out of the Law and Gospel, that they take away our liberty which God hath given us, & which no humane power can take from us. Out of the Law, we frame this Argument: If the Law of God permit us to work all the six days of the week, the law of man can not inhibit us. But the Law of God doth permit us to work all the six days of the week. Ergo. Our Opposites deny not the assumption, which is plain from the fourth commandment, Sixth days shalt thou labour, &c. But they would have somewhat to say against the proposition, which we will hear. ^sHooker tells us, that those things that the Law of God leaves arbitrary and at liberty, are subject to the positive ordinances of men. This (I must say) is strange divinity, for if this were true, then might the Laws of men prohibit Marriage, because it is left arbitrary, 1 Cor. 7. 36. Then might they also have discharged the Apostle Paul to take wages, because herein he was at liberty, 1. Cor. 9. 11. 12. 13.

THat which hath beene said against all the controverted Ceremonies Sect. I in generall, I will now instance of Festivall dayes in particular; and prove both out of the Law and Gospell, that they take away our liberty which God hath given us, & which no humane power can take from us. Out of the Law, we frame this Argument: If the Law of God permit us to worke all the sixe dayes of the week, the law of man can not inhibite us. But the Law of God doth permit us to worke all the sixe dayes of the week. Ergo. Our Opposites deny not the assumption, which is plaine from the fourth commandemen•, Sixt dayes shalt thou labour, &c. But they would have somewhat to say against the proposition, which we will heare. ^sHooker tells us, that those things that the Law of God leaves arbitrary and at liberty, are subject to the positive ordinances of men. This (I must say) is strange divinity, for if this were true, then might the Lawes of men prohibite Mariage, because it is left arbitrary, 1 Cor. 7. 36. Then might they also have discharged the Apostle Paul to take wages, because herein he was at liberty, 1. Cor. 9. 11. 12. 13.

1. sEccl. pol. lib. 5. n. 71.

Tilen lendeth the cause another lift, and ^tanswereth, •hat no sober Sect. II man will say, permissionem Dei, principibus suum circa res medias jus ⟨p. 21⟩imminuere, num enim ob permissum hominibus dominium in volucres caeli, in pisces maris, & bestias agri, impiae fuerint leges principum, quibus aucupii, piscationis, & venationis libertatem, subditis aliis indulgent, aliis adimunt. Ans. That case and this are very different. For every particular man hath not dominion and power over all Fowls, Fishes, & Beasts, (else, beside that Princes should have no privilege of inhibiting the use of those things, there should be no propriety of heritage, and possession among subjects:) but power over all these is given to mankind. ^uPareus observeth, hominem collective intelligi in that place, Gen. 1. 26. and ^xJunius observeth, nomen Adam de specie esse in telligendum. But each particular man, & not mankind alone, is permitted to labour six days. Wherefore it is plain, that mans liberty is not abridged in the other case, as in this, because mankind hath dominion over these Creatures, when some men only do exercise the same, as well as if all men did exercise it.

Tilen lendeth the cause another lift, and ^tansweareth, •hat no sober Sect. II man will say, permissionem Dei, principibus suum circa res medias jus ⟨p. 21⟩imminuere, num enim ob permissum hominibus dominium in volucres caeli, in pisces maris, & bestias agri, impiae fuerint leges principum, quibus aucupii, piscationis, & venationis libertatem, subditis aliis indulgent, aliis adimunt. Ans. That case and this are very different. For every particular man hath not dominion and power over all Foules, Fishes, & Beasts, (else, beside that Princes should have no priviledge of inhibiting the use of those things, there should be no propriety of heritage, and possession among subjects:) but power over all these is given to mankinde. ^uPareus observeth, hominem collective intelligi in that place, Gen. 1. 26. and ^xInnius observeth, nomen Adam de specie esse in telligendum. But each particular man, & not mankynd alone, is permitted to labour sixe dayes. Wherefore it is plaine, that mans liberty is not abridged in the other case, as in this, because mankynde hath dominion over these Creatures, when some men only doe exerce the same, as well as if all men did exerce it.

1. tParaes. ad Scot. c. 16. pag. 64.
2. ucome in illum locumcomm in illum locum
3. xpralect. in eundem locum.

B. Lindsey his answer is no better, Viz. ^yThat this liberty Sect. III which God hath given unto men for labour, is not absolute but subject unto order, For. 1: what tyranny is there so great, spoiling men wholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? for by order, he understandeth the constitutions of our Governors, as is clear from his preceding words, so that this may be alleged for a just excuse of any tyranny of Governors, (that men must be subject unto order,) no less then for taking away from us the liberty of labouring six days. 2. This answer is nothing else but a begging of that which is in question, for the present question is, whether or not the constitutions of our Governors, may inhibit us to labour all the six days of the week, and yet he saith no more, but that this liberty of labour must be subject to order, i. e. to the constitutions of Governors. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject our selves to our Governors, yet we may not submit our liberty to them, which God hath graciously given us, because, ^zwe are forbidden to be the servants of men, or ^ato be entangled with the yoke of bondage.

B. Lindsey his answeare is no better, Viz. ^yThat this liberty Sect. III which God hath given unto men for labour, is not absolute but subject unto order, For. 1: what tyrannie is there so great, spoyling men wholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? for by order, he understandeth the constitutions of our Governours, as is cleare from his preceeding words, so that this may be alleadged for a just excuse of any tyrannie of Governours, (that men must be subject unto order,) no lesse then for taking away from us the liberty of labouring sixe dayes. 2. This answeare is nothing else but a begging of that which is in question, for the present question is, whether or not the constitutions of our Gouvernours, may inhibite us to labour all the sixe dayes of the week, and yet he saith no more, but that this liberty of labour must be subject to order, i. e. to the constitutions of Governous. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject our selves to our Governours, yet we may not submit our liberty to them, which God hath graciously given us, because, ^zwe are forbidden to be the servants of men, or ^ato be intangled with the yoke of bondage.

1. yProc. in Perth. Assemb. part. 3. pag. 13.
2. z1. Cor. 7. 23.
3. aGal. 5. 1.

Yet we must hear what the Bishop can say against our proposition. Sect. IV ^bIf under the Law (saith he) God did not spoil his people of liberty, when he appointed them to rest two days at Pasche, one at Whitsunday, &c. how can the Kings Majesty and the Church, be esteemed to spoil us of our liberty, that command a cessation from labour on three days, &c. O horrible blasphemy! O double deceitfulness! Blasph my: because so much power is a scribed to the King and the Church over us, as God had over his people of old. God did justly command his people under the Law to rest from labour on other days beside the Sabbath, without wronging them, therefore the King and the Church may as justly, and with doing as little wrong, command us to rest likewise: because God by a Ceremonial Law, did hinder his people ⟨p. 22⟩from the use of so much liberty, as the Moral Law did give them; Therefore the King and the Church may do so also. Deceitfulness, in that he saith, God did not spoil his people of liberty, &c. We know, that by appointing them to rest on those days, God did not take away liberty from his people, simply and absolutely, because they had no more liberty then he did allow to them by his laws, which he gave by the hand of Moses, yet he did take away that liberty, which one part of his laws did permit to them, Viz. The fourth Commandment of the Moral Law, which permitted them to labour six days. The B. knew, that this question in hand, hath not to do with liberty in the general notion of it, but with liberty which the Moral Law doth permit. We say then, that God took away from his people Israel, some of the liberty, which his moral Law permitted to them, because he was the Law giver, and Lord of the Law, and that the King and the Church can not do the like with us, because they are no more Lords over Gods Law, then the people who are set under them.

Yet we must heare what the Bishop can say against our proposition. Sect. IV ^bIf under the Law (saith he) God did not spoyle his people of liberty, when he appoynted them to rest two dayes at Pasche, one at Whitsonday, &c. how can the Kings Majesty and the Church, be esteemed to spoyle us of our liberty, that command a cessation from labour on three dayes, &c. O horrible blasphemy! O double deceitfulnesse! Blasph my: because so much power is a scribed to the King and the Church over us, as God had over his people of old. God did justly command his people under the Law to rest from laboure on other dayes beside the Sabbath, without wronging them, therefore the King and the Church may as justly, and with doing as litle wrong, command us to rest likewise: because God by a Ceremoniall Law, did hinder his people ⟨p. 22⟩from the use of so much liberty, as the Morall Law did give them; T•erefore the King and the Church may doe so also. Deceitfulnesse, in that he saith, God did not spoyle his people of liberty, &c. We know, that by appointing them to rest on those dayes, God did not take away liberty from his people, simply and absolutely, because they had no more liberty then he did allow to them by his lawes, which he gave by the hand of Moses, yet he did take away that liberty, which one part of his lawes did permit to them, Viz. The fourth Commandement of the Morall Law, which permitted them to labour sixe dayes. The B. knew, that this question in hand, hath not to doe with liberty in the generall notion of it, but with liberty which the Morall Law doth permit. We say then, that God tooke away from his people Israell, some of the liberty, which his morall Law permitted to them, because he was the Law giver, and Lord of the Law, and that the King and the Church can not doe the like with us, because they are no more Lords over Gods Law, then the people who are set under them.

1. bubi supra

But he hath yet more to say against us. If the King (saith he,) may command a cessation from economical and private works, for works Sect. V civill and public, such as the defence of the Crown, the liberty of the Country, &c. What reason have ye, why he may not enjoin a day of cessation from all kind of bodily labour, for the honour of God and exercise of Religion, &c. Ans. this kind of reasoning is most vicious, for three respects, 1. It supposeth, that he who may command a cessation from one kind of labour, upon one of the six days, may also command a cessation from all kind of labour, but there is a difference: for the Law of God hath allowed us to labour six days of every week, which liberty no human power can take from us. But we can not say, that the law of God alloweth us six days of every week, to Economical and private works, (for then we should never be bound to put our hands to a public work.) Whence it cometh, that the Magistrate hath power left him to command a necessa•ion from some labour, but not from all. 2. The Bishop reasoneth from a cessation from ordinary labour for extraordinary labour, to a cessation from ordinary labour for no labour: for they who use their weapons for the defence of the Crown or liberty of the Country, do not cease from labour, but only change ordinary labour into extraordinary, and private labour into public: Whereas our Opposites plead for a cessation from all labour upon their holy days. 3. He skippeth de genere in genus: because the King may command a cessation for civill works, therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of Religion, as if he had so great power in Sacred as in Civill things.

But he hath yet more to say against us. If the King (saith he,) may command a cessation from oeconomicall and privat workes, for workes Sect. V civill and publike, such as the defence of the Crowne, the liberty of the Country, &c. What reason have ye, why he may not injoyne a day of cessation from all kinde of bodily labour, for the honour of God and exercise of Religion, &c. Ans. this kinde of reasoning is most vitious, for three respects, 1. It supposeth, that he who may command a cessation from one kind of labour, upon one of the sixe dayes, may also command a cessation from all kind of labour, but there is a difference: for the Law of God hath allowed us to labour sixe dayes of every week, which liberty no human power can take from us. But we can not say, that the law of God alloweth us sixe dayes of every week, to Oeconomicall and private workes, (for then we should never be bound to put our hands to a publike worke.) Whence it commeth, that the Magistrate hath power left him to command a necessa•ion from some labour, but not from all. 2. The Bishop reasoneth from a cessation from ordinary labour for extraordinary labour, to a cessation from ordinary labour for no labour: for they who use their weapons for the defence of the Crowne or liberty of the Country, doe not cease from labour, but only change ordinary labour into extraordinary, and private labour into publike: Whereas our Opposites pleade for a cessation from all labour upon their holy dayes. 3. He skippeth de genere in genus: because the King may command a cessation for civill workes, therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of Religion, as if he had so great power in Sacred as in Civill things.

The B hath yet a third dart to throw at us. If the Church ^csaith Sect. VI he, hath power upon occasional motives to appoint occasional Fasts or Festivities, ⟨p. 23⟩may not she for constant and eternal blessings, which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving. Ans. There are two reasons, for which the Church may and should appoint Fasts or Festivities upon occasional motives, and neither of them agreeth with ordinary Festivities. 1. Extraordinary Fasts either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgement, are necessary means to be used in such cases: likewise, extraordinary Festivities are necessary testifications of our thankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordinary Fasts; but ordinary Festivities for constant, & eternal blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set Anniversary days, is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, Because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon Gods Word. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque saith ^dDanaeus: quotidienobis in Evangelii predication nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus, 2. God hath given his Church a general precept for extraordinary Fasts, Joel, 1. 14. and. 2. 15. as likewise for Extraordinary Festivities, to praise God, and to give him thanks in the public assembly of his people, upon the occasional motive of some great benefit which by the means of our fasting and praying, we have obtained, Zechar. 8. 19. with. 7. 3. If it be said, that there is a general command for set Festivities, because there is a command for Preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefits; and that there is no precept for particular Fasts, more then for particular Festivities? I ans. albeit there is a command for preaching & hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefits, yet is there no command (no not in the most general generality,) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary days, more then to other days: whereas it is plain, that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation, at some times, more then at other times.

The B hath yet a thrid dart to throw at us. If the Church ^csaith Sect. VI he, hath power upon occasionall motives to appoint occasionall Fasts or Festivities, ⟨p. 23⟩may not shee for constant and eternall blessings, which doe infinitly excell all occasionall benefites, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving. Ans. There are two reasons, for which the Church may and should appoint Fasts or Festivities upon occasionall motives, and neither of them agreeth with ordinary Festivities. 1. Extraordinary Fasts either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgement, are necessary meanes to be used in such cases: likewise, extraordinary Festivities are necessary testifications of our thankfulnesse for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordinary Fasts; but ordinary Festivities for constant, & eternall blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set Anniversary dayes, is no necessary meane for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, Because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to minde these benefites, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon Gods Word. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque saith ^dDanaeus: quotidienobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus, 2. God hath given his Church a generall precept for extraordinary Fasts, Ioel, 1. 14. and. 2. 15. as likewise for Extraordinary Festivities, to praise God, and to give him thanks in the publike assembly of his people, upon the occasionall motive of some great benefite which by the meanes of our fasting and praying, we have obtained, Zechar. 8. 19. with. 7. 3. If it be said, that there is a generall command for set Festivities, because there is a command for Preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefites; and that there is no precept for particular Fasts, more then for particulare Festivities? I ans. albeit there is a command for preaching & hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefites, yet is there no commnad (no not in the most generall generality,) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary dayes, more then to other dayes: whereas it is plaine, that there is a generall command for fasting and humiliation, at some times, more then at other times.

1. cibid. pag. 26. 27.
2. dapud •ald. de casconsc. lib. 2. c. 13. cas. 1.

And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting, could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as ^eCamero saith, But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite: for the ^fBishop himself acknowledgeth, that to appoint a festival day for every week; can not stand with Charity, the inseparable companion of piety. And albeit so many were allowable, yet who seeth not, how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as Fasts which are appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite. I conclude, that since Gods Word hath given us a general ⟨p. 24⟩command for occasional Fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things, anent the causes, occasions, nature, and manner of Fasting: we may well say with ^gCartwright, that days of fasting are appointed at such times and upon such occasions, as the Scripture doeth set forth: wherein because the Church commandeth nothing, but that which God commandeth, the Religious observation of them, falleth unto the obedience of the fourth Commandment, as well as of the seventh day it self.

And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting, could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as ^eCamero saith, But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite: for the ^fBishop himselfe acknowledgeth, that to appoint a festivall day for every week; can not stand with Charity, the inseparable companion of piety. And albeit so many were allowable, yet who seeth not, how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as Fasts which are appointed for ocurring causes, and therefore may be infinit. I conclude, that since Gods Word hath given us a generall ⟨p. 24⟩command for occasionall Fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things, anent the causes, occasions, nature, and maner of Fasting: we may well say with ^gCartwright, that dayes of fasting are appointed at such times and upon such occasions, as the Scripture doeth set forth: wherein because the Church commandeth nothing, but that which God commandeth, the Religious observation of them, falleth unto the obedience of the fourth Commandement, as well as of the seventh day it selfe.

1. epr•l. tom▪ 1. de pot. Eccl. contr. 2.
2. fubi supra pag. 16.
3. gag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. 4. 10.

The ^hBishop presseth us with a fourth Argument, taken from Sect. VII the calling of people in great Townes, from their ordinary labours to Divine service. Which Argument ⁱTilen also beateth upon. Ans. There is huge difference betwixt the rest which is enjoined upon anniversary Festivities, and the rest which is required, during the time of the weekly meetings for Divine Worship. For, 1. Upon Festival days, rest from labour is required all the day over, whereas upon the days of ordinary and weekly meetings, rest is required, only during the time of public Worship. 2. Cessation from labour for Prayers or Preaching on those appointed days of the week, at some occasions may be omitted, but the rest, and commemoration appointed by the Church to be precisely observed upon the anniversary Festival days, must not be omitted, in the ^kBishops judgment. 3. Men are straitly commanded & compelled to rest from labour upon Holidays, but to leave work to come to the ordinary weekly meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I mark how the Bishop contradicteth himself: for in one place where his Antagonist maintaineth truly, that the Craftsman can not be lawfully commanded nor compelled to leave his work, and to go to public Divine Service, except on the day that the Lord hath sanctified: ^lHe replieth, if he may be lawfully commanded to cease from his labour, during the time of divine service, he may be as lawfully compelled to obey the command. Who can give these words any sense, or see any thing in them said against his Antagonists position, except he be taken to say, that the Craftman may be both commanded and compelled to leave his work, & go to Divine Service, on the week days appointed for the same? Nay, he laboureth to prove thus much out of the 9. head of the first book of Discipline, which saith: In great Townes, we think expedient that every day there be either Sermon or common Prayers, &c. Where there is nothing of compulsion, or a forcing command, only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bishop have said much, he forgetteth himself, ^mand tells us, that it were against Equity & Charity, to adstrict the husband-man to leave his plough, so oft as the days of weekly preaching do return, but that on the Festival days, reason would, that if he did not leave his plough willingly, by Authority he should be forced.

The ^hBishop presseth us with a fourth Argument, taken from Sect. VII the calling of people in great Townes, from their ordinary labours to Divine service. Which Argument ⁱTilen also beateth upon. Ans. There is huge difference betwixt the rest which is injoyned upon anniversary Festivities, and the rest which is required, during the time of the weekly meetings for Divine Worship. For, 1. Vpon Festivall dayes, rest from labour is required all the day over, whereas upon the dayes of ordinary and weekly meetings, rest is required, onely during the time of publike Worship. 2. Cessation from labour for Prayers or Preaching on those appointed dayes of the week, at some occasions may be omitted, but the rest, and commemoration appointed by the Church to be precisely observed upon the anniversary Festivall dayes, must not be omitted, in the ^kBishops judgment. 3. Men are straitly commanded & compelled to rest from labour upon Holydayes, but to leave worke to come to the ordinary weekly meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I marke how the Bishop contradicteth himselfe: for in one place where his Antagonist maintaineth truly, that the Craftsman can not be lawfully commanded nor compelled to leave his worke, and to goe to publike Divine Service, except on the day that the Lord hath sanctified: ^lHe replieth, if he may be lawfully commanded to cease from his labour, during the time of divine service, he may be as lawfully compelled to obey the command. Who can give these words any sence, or see any thing in them said against his Antagonists position, except he be taken to say, that the Craftman may be both commanded and compelled to leave his worke, & goe to Divine Service, on the week dayes appointed for the same? Nay, he laboureth to prove thus much out of the 9. head of the first booke of Discipline, which saith: In great Townes, we think expedient that every day there be either Sermon or common Prayers, &c. Where there is nothing of compulsion, or a forcing command, only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bishop have said much, he forgetteth himselfe, ^mand tells us, that it were against Equity & Charity, to adstrict the husband-man to leave his plough, so oft as the dayes of weekly preaching doe returne, but that on the Festivall dayes, reason would, that if he did not leave his plough willingly, by Auctority he should be forced.

1. hubi supra pag. 16. 17.
2. iPar•n ad Scot. c. 16. pag. 64.
3. kubi supra pag. 25.
4. libid. pag. 17.
5. mibid. pag. 27.

Which place confirmeth this difference, which we give betwixt rest on the holidays, and rest at the times of weekly meeting.

Which place confirmeth this difference, which we give betwixt rest on the holydayes, and rest at the times of weekly meeting.

CHAP. VIII.

That Festival days take away our Christian Liberty, proved out of the Gospel.

That Festivall dayes take away our Christian Liberty, proved out of the Gospell.

MY second Argument, whereby I prove, that the imposing of the observation of Holy days, doth bereave us of Sect. I our Liberty, I take out of two places of the Apostle: the one, Gal. 4. 10. Where he finds fault with the Galatians, for observing of days, and giveth them two reasons against them: the one, vers. 3. They were a yoke of bondage which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear: another vers 9. They were weak and beggarly rudiments, not beseeming the Christian Church, which is liberate from the Pedagogical instruction of the Ceremonial Law. The other place is, Col. 2. 16. Where the Apostle will have the Colossians, not to suffer themselves to be judged by any man in respect of an Holy day, i. e. to be condemned for not observing a Holy-day, for, ⁿjudicare hic significat culpae reum facere; and ^othe meaning is: suffer not your selves to be condemned by those false Apostles, or by any mortal man, in the cause of meat, that is, for meat or drink taken, or for any Holy-day, or any part of an Holy-day neglected. Two other reasons the Apostle giveth in this place, against Festival days; one, vers. 17. What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? another, vers. 20. Why should we be subject to humane ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are our Holy-days to be condemned, as taking away Christian Liberty; and so that which the Apostle saith, doeth militate as well against them, as against any other Holy-days: for whereas it might be thought, that the Apostle doeth not condemn all Holy-days, because both he permitteth others to observe days, Rom. 14. 5. And he himself also did observe one of the Jewish Feasts, Act. 18. 21. It is easily answered, that our Holy-days have no warrant from these places, except our Opposites will say, that they esteem their Festival days holier then other days, and that they observe the Jewish Festivities. Neither of which they do acknowledge;

MY seconde Argument, whereby I prove, that the imposing of the observation of Holy dayes, doth bereave us of Sect. I our Liberty, I take out of two places of the Apostle: the one, Gal. 4. 10. Where he finds fault with the Galatians, for observing of dayes, and giveth them two reasons against them: the one, vers. 3. They were a yoke of bondage which neither they nor their Fathers were able to beare: another vers 9. They were weake and beggarly rudiments, not beseeming the Christian Church, which is liberate from the Pedagogicall instruction of the Ceremoniall Law. The other place is, Col. 2. 16. Where the Apostle will have the Colossians, not to suffer themselves to be iudged by any man in respect of an Holy day, i. e. to be condemned for not observing a Holy-day, for, ⁿjudicare hic significat culpae reum facere; and ^othe meaning is: suffer not your selves to be condemned by those false Apostles, or by any mortall man, in the cause of meate, that is, for meate or drinke taken, or for any Holy-day, or any part of an Holy-day neglected. Two other reasons the Apostle giveth in this place, against Festivall dayes; one, vers. 17. What should we doe with the shadow, when we have the body? another, vers. 20. Why should we be subject to humane ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing adoe with them? Now, by the same reasons are our Holy-dayes to be condemned, as taking away Christian Liberty; and so that which the Apostle saith, doeth militate as well against them, as against any other Holy-dayes: for whereas it might bee thought, that the Apostle doeth not condemne all Holy-dayes, because both he permitteth others to observe dayes, Rom. 14. 5. And he himselfe also did observe one of the Iewish Feasts, Act. 18. 21. It is easily answered, that our Holy-dayes have no warrant from these places, except our Opposites will say, that they esteeme their Festivall dayes holier then other dayes, and that they observe the Iewish Festivities. Neither of which they doe aknowledge;

1. nCalv. come. in illum loc.Calv. com. in illum loc.
2. oZanch. come. ibid.Zanch. com. ibid.