An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 10 – Section 13
Sect. 10. Ejecting feſtivals. Separation from the pureſt times, even thoſe of the Apoſtles. Our Churches departure from Rome unjuſtly paralleld with the departure of ſons from our Church.
MY 3d conſideration was, that the raſing this Feſtivity out of the Calendar is an act of ſeparation from the Church of England, and the univerſal Church of all ages, eſpecially of the firſt and pureſt times.
To this he anſwers by denyal of both parts, Not the latter having proved, as he ſaith, that the firſt and pureſt ages of the Church did not obſerve it, Not the former, unleſſe I yield that the Reformation of the Church of England was a diviſion and ſeparation from the Church of Rome, or the reformation in Luthers time a ſeparation from the Catholike Church, as Papiſts ſay it was.
But for the former of theſe, it is ſufficient to reply by way of demand, where it is that he hath ſo proved this of the firſt and pureſt ages not obſerving feſtivals, that he can affirm it certain that this of diſuſing or laying them down is not ſeparation from the Church of thoſe ages? Truly my eyes or my memory very much fail me, or he hath not as yet proved it in any degree, much leſſe ſo demonſtrated it that a Corollary deduced from thence, and depending on that probation, ſhould deſerve to be pronounced certain.
Nay ſure there hath yet been no occaſion offered him (at leaſt made uſe of by him) to attempt ſo impoſſible a thing, as is ſuch a negative probation. Of this I am ſure, that for this Feſtival and that other of Eaſter the reaſon muſt be the ſame, and I have already made it as clear as the day, that that was obſerved by the Apoſtles of Chriſt, by Philip and Iohn on the Iewiſh day, and by Peter and Paul on the annual Dominical; And if through the dimneſſe or want of ſtories of thoſe times, this be not ſo evident of this particular Feaſt of Chriſtmaſſe, yet the analogy holding directly betwixt the one and the other, the argument remains as firm, that the laying aſide either this or that feſtival, is a ſeparation from the Apoſtolick, and thoſe ſure are the firſt and pureſt times.
Beſides I have as clearly ſhewed that the ſolemnities and feſtivities commemorative of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp, two Biſhops that lived in the Apoſtles times, were obſerved from the very times of their deaths, and that in compliance with other the like feſtivals of the Church before them, which muſt needs come home to the obſervation of feſtivals in the Apoſtles days.
And then how can this Diatribiſt flatter himſelf that he hath proved the contrary to this, when he hath not ſo much as offered either the leaſt anſwer to theſe, or any the leaſt reaſon or proof of his negation?
For the latter, I reply, that there is no analogie betwixt the Church of Englands departing from Rome, and the Diatribiſts departing from the Church of England, I might inſtance in many, twill be ſufficient that I ſhew it in two particulars, 1. the Church of England in the Reformation departed not from their lawful ſuperiors, being, as the Diatribiſt acknowledges foreign, and owing no ſubordination to the Church of Rome, when ſhe departed from her, whereas the perſons then ſpoken of by me, and the Diatribiſt for one, were certainly members that ought a Chriſtian obedience to the Church of England, as inferiors to ſuperiors, and ſo departed from their lawful ſuperiors wherein Schiſme doth principally conſiſt, as hath elſewhere been ſhewn.
Thoſe things wherein the Church of England reformed, and departed from the Romiſh opinions and practices were none of them ſuch as this of feſtivals now appears to be, i. e. common uſages of the Ʋniverſal, ancient, eſpecially of the Primitive pureſt Church, but innovations unduely brought in by them, and impoſed on all Chriſtians.
And as even now, ſo again this Diatribiſts confeſſion here, is more to the advantage of the Romiſh Church, then any thing that he could likely have ſaid, no way clearing his fact from Schiſme, nor offering the leaſt colour to it, and yet acknowledging that the Church of Englands reformation, and ſo Luthers reformation alſo, was as truely an act of Schiſme from Rome, as is theirs from the Church of England. But I muſt put in my proteſtation of diſſent to this propoſition alſo, and that is all I need to ſay to that anſwer.
Sect. 11. The profaneneſſe objected to the Feſtival. Caſting out the Creeds.
HIS anſwer to the 4th conſideration is ſo ſlight, and therein ſo little on which to faſten any reply, that I may ſafely intruſt the Reader with it, and only minde the Diatribiſt, 1. that till he hath more ſolidly proved the obſervation of this Feſtival among us to be ſuperſtition, then hitherto he hath done, twill be great uncharitableneſs thus to accuſe it, and greater injuſtice to deſtroy the innocent for this (if it were true, yet but) accidental and removable crime imagined to be adherent to it.
And 2. till he hath written as full a tract of profaneneſs as he hath done of Superſtition, and been more ſucceſſefull in his evidences that this Feſtival is guilty of it, ſhewed that that is derived from ſuper ſtatutum alſo, or evinced the ſame thing by ſome more ſenſible way of probation, tis but a pitiful begging of the queſtion, thus irrationally to accumulate crimes on innocency, to adde the Profaneneſſe to the Superſtition, to ſuppoſe the Feſtival able to work miracles, to reconcile the moſt contrary extremes (as if in the vein of declaiming he ſhould call the ſame man firſt Papiſt, then Socinian) for ſuch he knows are Superſtition and Profaneneſſe.
In ſtead of which it were much more ſeaſonable for him ſadly to inquire, which is moſt liable to the charge of profaneneſſe, the ſetting apart a feſtival from common uſes to the commemorating the birth of Chriſt in Prayer, Praiſes, Euchariſt, hearing the word read and preached, and profiting by all theſe; or the faſtidious refuſing to joyn with the Church of God in all or any of theſe offices at that time, following the Plough, or attending the Shop in ſtead of it.
And I ſhall with the ſame ſeriouſneſſe deſire him to review his words p. 147. Where in anſwer to my mention of diſuſing the Creeds and Catechiſme, he ſaith, in a parentheſis, that the Creed is ſtill to be retained in and with the Catechiſme] and demand whether he doth not know, that the ſame Tempeſt that carried away the Feſtivals, ſwept away (more then one) the three Creeds received from the ancient Church and retained in our Liturgie, and together with them the Church Catechiſme, of which, he knowes, I ſpake.
And then what truth can be in his parentheſis, unleſſe it be only this, that theſe are ſtill retained in our Books (which they have joyned to condemn) though they be not retained in their offices, but ſolemnly ejected by them. Such equivocal anſwers or reſponſes as theſe he knowes from what oracles they were wont to be delivered, and therefore ſhould not be imitated.
Sect. 12. The Diatribiſts change of my words, his cauſleſſe praiſe of himſelf, and cenſure of others.
HIS 14th §. is ſomewhat of the ſame making, for when I ſpake of that deeper knowledge of ſome, which was ſome degree above the vulgar ignorance, and yet was obſervable to be impatient of ſound doctrine, to be ready to imbrace any thing that was novel, and contrary to the ancient faith and Principles] he anſwers, that the impatience of ſound doctrine, and readineſs to imbrace any thing that is novel, is not to be found in thoſe of deep or ſound knowledge.
But why ſhould he there inſert the word [ſound] can he imagine that I ſpake of thoſe of ſound knowledge, when I ſpake of impatience of ſound doctrine, Twas viſible enough that I ſpake of thoſe, which while they leſſe ſeemed to want ſuch helps as Chriſtmaſſe ſervices and ſermons to teach them the ſound doctrine of Chriſt, did yet moſt really need them to cure the vanity of their own minds, and their itch of any thing that was novel.
By this tis alſo manifeſt how little temptation he had to break out into thoſe Eulogies of himſelf and his friends, to which certainly I never conſtrained him by thoſe words that belonged not to the Paſtors but only to their auditors, who when they have attained to ſome meaſure of knowledge above the more ignorant, are yet experimented to be very fickle and apt to fall off into new doctrines.
However, let him not flatter himſelf as he doth, that thoſe that ejected theſe Feſtivities under pretence of Reforming abuſes of ſuperſtition and profaneneſſe, are the men only or chiefly that propugne and maintain ſound doctrine, when, as he goes on very glibly, thoſe that were the greateſt favourers of thoſe Feſtivals, are fallen into Arminianiſme &c. or do little appear to maintain the truth.
I wonder what a Phariſee could have ſaid more in his ſolemneſt Magnificat; He, forſooth, and ſuch as he, are the men that only or chiefly propugn and maintain ſound doctrine, and who can doubt it when he hath thus affirmed it of himſelf? and all others are but as this Publicane, for ſo this new ſtyle of Arminian bears proportion with that ancient; and whoſoever will not think as this Diatribiſt doth, that Feſtivals are forbidden in the 2d and the 4th Commandments, that will favour ſlaviſh fear, or mercenary obedience, or ſuſpect that grace may be received in vain, muſt preſently fall under that condemnation; and then the beſt that can be ſaid of them is, that they doe little appear to maintain the truth.
Sect. 13. His 2d change of my words. Gedeons golden Ephod not appliable to Feaſts.
SO again when I had mentioned the deſigns of this ſolemnity, no other then to teach us what we have received in Chriſt, and aſſiſt us to render God a pious publick acknowledgement of it, He is pleaſed not to underſtand this, but to interpret it (contrary to the expreſs words) of the deſign in the firſt inſtituters of this piece of ſervice to Chriſt Jeſus.
And to what purpoſe was this change? why, to make the example of Gedeon's golden Ephah applicable to it, in the making of which, ſaith he, though Gedeon's deſign was very fair to leave a monument of his victory, yet it proved a ſnare to him and his houſe and all Iſrael.
From which notable example, no doubt, it follows that every Feſtival, or what ever elſe is deſigned as a publick pious acknowledgement of the Chriſtians thankfulneſs to God, is to be lookt on as a ſnare to all the people of God, and ſo upon all reaſons of piety to be aboliſhed.
And there were no way of reſiſting this concluſion thus inferred, if our common notions, or Logick had not warned us that particular premiſes would never induce a concluſion, and that examples are not always argumentative, For then indeed the Lords day which is ſuppoſed to have been deſigned for all theſe good ends, muſt upon the ſame account be aboliſht alſo.