An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 1 – Section 2
Sect. 1. The obſervance which is due to the Cuſtome of a Church. The Teſtimonies of Ambroſe, and Auguſtine, and Iſidore.
IN our entrance on the diſcourſe of Feſtivals, I had thought that the cuſtomary practice of the univerſal Church of Chriſt, and particularly the perpetual immemorial uſage of the Church of England, continued, as farre as we can diſcern, from the firſt plantation, without any interruption, to the time of writing that treatiſe, might have had ſome weight with any that were not contentious, if it were but upon the account of S. Pauls argument thus drawn from the cuſtomary practiſe of the Churches of God.
On occaſion hereof the Diatribiſt falls preſently into the examination of that place where S. Paul uſeth that argument 1 Cor. 11. 16. and inquires what inferences naturally ariſe from the words of the Apoſtle. But I who deſigned to conclude no more from that reference but only this, that the cuſtome of the Church ought to be of ſome force and weight with any meek ſon of the Church, have no need of following him into that inquiry, if the looſeſt conſideration and very firſt view of thoſe words do not prove that, neither ſhall I farther contend for it.
Paul argued from cuſtome, and I propoſed the like argument, and ſo made a reference to S. Paul, whoſe example I thus farre tranſcribed, and if in other reſpects the analogy held not, it matters not, ſo it held in this, that cuſtome was conſiderable in circumſtances of religion, ſuch was covering or not covering the head in the ſervice of God there, and ſuch is the obſervation of a Feſtival here; And this is all that I need reply to his firſt §.
Yet I ſhall ex abundanti adde one or two teſtimonies for the confirming the weakeſt part of that conſideration, viz. the reaſonableneſs of complying with, (ſo as not to oppoſe) the cuſtome of any particular Church, though they be no more then ſo, though they pretend not to be derived from the Apoſtles, whether by inſtitution or practiſe, ſuppoſing withall that they are no way contrary thereto.
And 1. We have the words of St Ambroſe, ſufficiently known. Ad quamcunque Eccleſiam veneritis, ejus morem ſervate, ſi pati ſcandalum non vultis aut facere; To whatſoever Church ye come, obſerve the cuſtome thereof, if you will neither receive nor give ſcandal.
2dly. The (as clear) words of Ep. 28. Tom: 1. p. 69.St Auguſtine, Ego te illud breviter admonendum puto, traditiones Eccleſiaſticas (praeſertim quae fidei non officiunt) ita obſervandas ut à majoribus traditae ſunt, nec aliorum conſuetudinem aliorum contrario more ſubverti. I would briefely admoniſh you that Eccleſiaſtical traditions (eſpecially ſuch as offend not the faith) are ſo to be obſerved as they are delivered by our Anceſtors, nor muſt the cuſtome of ſome be ſubverted by the contrary cuſtome of others. And yet higher in the ſame Epiſtle, Ʋnaquaeque provincia praecepta majorum leges Apoſtolicas arbitretur, Let every Province eſteem the precepts of their Anceſtors as Apoſtolical Laws, i. e. certainly pay obſervance to them, though they be not of Apoſtolical inſtitution.
So Iſidore, l. 2. de Eccl: Offic: c. 43. Nec diſciplina in his melior eſt gravi prudentique Chriſtiano, niſi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Eccleſiam ad quam devenerit. There is no better rule in ſuch things for a grave and prudent Chriſtian, then to do in that manner as he ſees the Church do to which he comes.
Store of ſuffrages might be heaped up on this occaſion; theſe few may ſuffice to juſtifie all that I had ſaid in that firſt §.
Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the firſt Antiquity.
THE 2d §. had propoſed one argument for the antiquity of this uſage among us, founded in the adverſaries ſuggeſtion againſt it. The adverſaries generally accuſe the Chriſtmaſs Feſtivity for ſome heatheniſh mixtures reteined in it; From which, if it were true, or however from the conceſſion of thoſe that affirmed it, I conceived an argument might be drawn, that therefore it was to be taken as granted, that this uſage was continued among us from the time of our firſt converſion from heatheniſm.
And I cannot yet ſee how this inference can be avoided; For how can any heathen uſage adhere to this Feſtivity, if all heathen cuſtomes were laid aſide long before this Feſtival were obſerved? Can it be imagined that after the ejecting of heatheniſm and the ſolemn abolition of all their feaſts, Saturnalia and the like, when Chriſtianity had gotten the poſſeſſion, there ſhould ſtill continue among them thoſe adherent rites of their heathen feaſts, ſo many accidents without their ſubjects? Or that Chriſtians that had long ſince renounced heatheniſm, and at length received this Chriſtian feaſt, ſhould ranſack their heathen rituals for ceremonies wherewith to adorn it?
But this, it ſeems, is of no force, or (as he ſaith) no way conſtringent with this Diatribiſt; For, ſaith he, they might be added ſome good while after the firſt converſion of ſome part of this Iſland, the better to win the reſt to a liking of Chriſtian religion, by conforming to them in the celebration of feſtivals. As the like was done to win the Jews in obſerving the old ſabbath, Pentecoſt, &c.
But ſure there is little force in this evaſion; For 1. it is by this anſwer confeſt, that as to ſome parts of this Iſland, my argument is of force, and that in thoſe this feſtival was introduced as early as their Chriſtianity, and if that may be granted me, I ſhall contend for no more by this medium, but think I have gained a very fair confeſſion for the antiquity of this uſage in this Church, that this feſtivity was thus early introduced among us, even as ſoon, if not before Chriſtianity had gotten poſſeſſion of this whole Nation.
Meanwhile, that the Nation was not converted the ſeveral parts of it together (I mean not every perſon of every part, but ſome of all) or that there was any ſuch interſtitium or interval conſiderable betwixt the converſion of ſome part of this Iſland and the reſt of it, this is incumbent on the Diatribiſt to prove, or elſe the argument remains in full force to the whole Nation, as well as to any part of it. And for this he hath offered no proof, and ſo hath yielded the force of my argument, when he went about to refute it.
2dly The example of the Chriſtians complying with the Jews, will ſtand him in as little ſtead; for when was it that the Chriſtians thus complied with the Jews, or that they retain'd their old ſabbath, out of that deſign of compliance with them? Was it not at the time of the firſt converſion of the Jews to Chriſtianity? Can it be imagined that the Jews were a good while before converted to the faith and to the doctrine of the abolition of the ſabbath, and then, ſome good while after that their converſion, the obſervation of their ſabbath ſhould be reduced, expoſtliminio?
Would not this be a conſtringent argument to any gainſayer to prove that baptiſm was introduced at the firſt beginnings of Chriſtianity, becauſe baptiſme is known to be a cuſtome taken from the Jews? And ſo ſure of the ſabbath, and the like; If any ſpace or interval had come in after the planting of Chriſtianity among the Jews, it is no way probable that the ſabbath once laid aſide, as a ceremony naild to the croſs of Chriſt, would ever after have been recalled, and obſerved among Chriſtians; only at the firſt converſion or plantation of the faith ſuch things might from the Jewiſh ſtate adhere unto the Chriſtian, though they were not taught by Chriſtianity, and ſo ſome others from the heathen alſo, tis poſſible and imaginable; but tis no way ſuppoſeable after the ſpace of many years, when heatheniſme with all its rites and adherents had long ago been caſt out.
And let this ſerve for his 2d §. The matter is not ſo weighty (being but an argumentum ad homines) as to deſerve any greater length of diſcourſe to vindicate it.