An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 14
Sect. 14. Strictures on his 16th §. Our Feſtivals unfitly compared with the Romiſh. How obſervation of Feſtivals may be a duty of the 5t Commandment. The fourth Commandment no way contrary to Chriſtian Feſtivals. Veniall ſinnes. All miſtakes not ſinnes. Chemnitius not producible againſt me.
HIS 16th §. is long, in making good his charge of Superſtition and Will-worſhip againſt this Feſtival, And it is certain that I have been large enough on theſe ſubjects already, as far as any thing that he could ſuggeſt, appeared to have the leaſt force either againſt ceremonies in general, or particularly this of Feſtivals, and therefore I ſhall not ſtill bind my ſelf and the Reader to that ungratefull penance of drawing the ſame Saw for ever, Yet if any thing ſhall now be afreſh objected, I ſhall not omit to take notice of it.
As 1. When to free it from all appearance of Will-worſhip, I ſay that thoſe that retain the uſage, obſerve it in obedience to the Laws of the Church, he hath great diſpleaſure to this, 1. Becauſe I ought firſt to have proved that they which inſtituted that Feſtival had a Lawfull power to do it, adding that the Papiſts may uſe the ſame argument for obſervation not onelyonly of their Holy days, but of their invocation of Saints, adoration of images, and the Maſs it ſelf.
But to this I anſwer, 1. That my not proving of this was founded in my ſuppoſing it. And the reaſon of that ſuppoſition elſewhere competently explained, that as Magiſtrates in generall, ſo particularly the Governors of a Church have an inveſtiture of power from Chriſt to the Apoſtles, whoſe ſucceſſors they are, to ordain and inſtitute ſuch circumſtances of the publick worſhip of God, as are times and place and geſture and the like, in order to decency, uniformity, and the benefit of their Churches.
And 2. That this Diatribiſt can again think fit to compare this with the Papiſts obſerving their own holy days &c. is interpretable as a far greater kindneſs to them, then I have ever been guilty of, For the plain inference is this, 1. The Church may command in lawfull things, therefore it may as well do ſo in unlawfull. 2dly There is no more unreaſonableneſſe in beſainting all thoſe that are gotten into the Romiſh Legend and Calendar, and conſecrating ſeveral days to the commemorating of them, then in commemorating the birth of Chriſt himſelf. 3dly It is as lawful to invoke all the Romiſh Saints, as publikely to pray to and praiſe Chriſt on the 25th of December. 4thly It is as ſafe to adore images, and the very bread in the Maſſe, as to adore and commemorate Chriſt on that day. What could paſſion, or intereſt, or foreign, or foreign, have ſuggeſted more unadviſedly then this?
His 2d diſlike and exception is, that having formerly founded times or dayes deſigned to publike worſhip, on the equity of the 4th Commandment, I ſhould now devolve the obſervation of this feſtival to obedience to the lawes of the Church, and ſo reduce it as a duty to the 5th Commandment, and upon this, as an eſpecial advantage, he is pleaſed to expatiate.
But the matter is clear enough, and was ſo, till he had taken pains to involve it. The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for Gods ſervice generally conſidered, and this or that particular time. That God ſhould have ſome times aſſigned for his ſervice is of the very law of Nature, and ſo much of morality there is fundamental to the poſitive precept of the weekly ſabbath in the 4 Commandment: Nay farther, the 4th Commandment being given to the Iewes for the obſerving one day in ſeven, as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew, it might equitably be inferred that a Chriſtian ſhould at leaſt ſet a part one day in ſeven for our great Chriſtian purpoſes, the firſt day of the week on which Chriſt roſe from the dead, And accordingly I ſuppoſe it inſtituted by the Apoſtles of Chriſt.
But then as among the Jewes beſide the weekly ſabbath required by the fourth Commandment, they had many other times of feſtivity, and faſting, ſome appointed by God himſelf in the time of the foreign, others inſtituted by men, and yet conſtantly obſerved by Gods people and accepted by God, and ſome approved by Chriſt himſelf, and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment, though not by any force of that, ſo now ſtill under the Goſpel nothing hinders, but that the Church of God by the power left to, and depoſited with them, may ordain Chriſtian feaſts, and faſts, and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek ſons of the Church, and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worſhip or ſpontaneity, but of honour and obſervance to this ordinance of the Church, and ſo a duty of the fift Commandment.
As for that which he addes in this matter, that we Chriſtians are by Chriſt reduced to the fourth Commandment, as for one day of ſeven to be holy, ſo for our allowance of ſix daies for our own works, 1. It hath not the leaſt appearance of truth in it, for where did Chriſt reduce us to the fourth Commandment? and tis viſible what the conſequence muſt be in affirming it, even an obligation to the Jewiſh Sabbath, for that certainly was the ſubject of the fourth Commandment.
2. It is no way pertinent to the matter in hand, for ſuppoſing Chriſtians allowed ſix daies for their own works, tis yet viſible that ſome of theſe ſix may by the free act of particular men be uſed, or by the power of the Chriſtian Church be ſet a part to Chriſtian uſes, as well as ſome days were (not only by God himſelf, but) by the Governors of the Jewes, Judas Maccabeus, and others, ſet a part for the publike ſervice of God in the old Teſtament, at which time tis by all confeſt that the fourth Commandment was in force, in all parts of it.
A ſecond exception I ſhall note in this §. p. 157. when upon theſe words of mine concerning the poſſible miſtake of the day, that that will be pardonable in thoſe that verily think they are not miſtaken, and that in them that do performe the buſineſſe of the day as compleatly on a miſtaken day as on the true, the excuſe of blameleſſe ignorance will waſh away greater errors then this,] he preſently replies, Does not this ſound ſomewhat like the Papiſts doctrine of venial ſins? and upon that occaſion is put in minde of Bellarmines defence againſt the peril of idolatry in the Maſſe, in caſe the bread be not tranſubſtantiated: And then he askes, Can any ignorance be blameleſſe againſt the Law of God, or waſh away any error without the blood of Chriſt?
But to this the anſwer is obvious, and the fallacy preſently diſcoverable, For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable ſins, muſt not be preſumed to exclude the blood of Chriſt, thoſe ſins are pardonable under the Goſpel for which that foreign was paid, and ſuch are all ſins that are reconcileable with true repentance, or the ſincerity of a regenerate ſtate.
But then 2. I am no way aſſured that it is a ſin ſo much as of ignorance, to miſtake in the day of Chriſts birth; every miſtake is not a ſin, but only that which is a breach of ſome law, and therefore I ſuppoſe it is, that the Diatribiſt was compelled to ſay, Can any ignorance be blameleſſe againſt a law of God? But then I profeſſe not to know any law of God, againſt which it is a ſin (though but of ignorance) to miſtake that day for the annual day of Chriſts birth, which really is not the day.
And I now deſire to be informed of which of the ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Teſtament this is a breach. When he tells me this, I ſhall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section, and anſwer his inſtance of ſo weighty conſideration about the very day of the Jews paſſeover, of which he acknowledge; that the very day was as ſtrictly commanded as the buſineſſe it ſelf, and ſo the error muſt be an error againſt a law, whereas he as certainly knowes that this day of Chriſts birth is by none ſo much as pretended to be ſo commanded.
What remains concerning Chemnitius's charge of Superſtition, on Papiſts obſervation of their holy daies, is all anſwered before it be produced, by this one conſideration, that Chemnitius, as a Lutheran, is by the Diatribiſt confeſt to allow this and other Feſtivals; For then hath he granted all that I contend for, who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papiſts.