An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 15
Sect. 15. Of riot. Chriſtian joyes no way contrary to our Feſtivals. Riot as ſeparable from Chriſtmas as the Lords day. Heathen cuſtomes cannot be objected. Gods judgments vainly urged for arguments. The charge of want of hoſpitality on thoſe that retain feſtivities. The hoſpitality at Chriſtmas a pledge of it all the year after. Reformation of exceſſe without abolition of the Feſtival. Attempt to reform, previous to abolition. The Agapae no example for aboliſhing Feſtivals. Cures for diſeaſes, exciſions only for deſperate ſpreading evils. No cards on Chriſtmas day, as much ſtrictneſſe on Chriſtmaſs, not more ſacredneſs then on the Lords day. No deſign of making the Lords day no inſtitution of the Apoſtles. Neither Superſtition nor hypocriſie in abſtaining from Cards on Chriſtmas day.
WHat now followes in the 17th §. and ſo on to the 27. is all to the head of Riot. Which I was careful to remove from this Feſtivity, And firſt having diſclaimed it as more intolerable in a Chriſtian then in a Jew, and that upon this account, that Spiritual joyes are his eminent if not only portion under promiſe, His anſwer is, that theſe are not limited to one or twelve dayes in a year, but are daily joyes, every day is a Chriſtmas to a godly heart, Rejoyce in the Lord always &c.
But he that thus anſwered, could not but know, that the weekly Lords day is ſet apart for a Chriſtian Feaſt dedicated particularly to theſe Spiritual joyes; and that this was very reconcileable with the text that ſaid once and again, Rejoyce always, and how then can this be oppoſed to an annual Feſtival?
Beſides, all that I had to ſay, was, that the Chriſtian joyes ſhould principally be Spiritual, and this not as a proof of the lawfulneſs of Feſtivals, but of the unlawfulneſſe of riots, and the Diatribiſts anſwer is wholly to that other head, to which that was never deſigned as a medium.
To which I might 3dly adde, that that text to the Philippians is an exhortation to rejoycing in tribulations, in the ſaddeſt as well as the cheerfulleſt ſeaſons, and ſo the alwaies is to be limited by the context; And then the application of it here was ſtill ſo much leſs pertinent.
In the 2d place, my 18th. §. being deſigned to ſhew how ſeparable all riot was from this Feſtival, by the nature of Chriſtian dainties, inſtruction, prayer, praiſes, almes, and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (none of which were capable of luxurie) and Feſtivity and Hoſpitality, which were clearly ſeparable from it; His anſwer is, 1. that theſe two laſt are thus ſeparable from riot, but very hardly; And I ſhall only demand, Are the leaſure and ceſſation from buſineſs on the Lords day, experimented to be more eaſily ſeparable from it? Is it more ordinary for the ſame men to be drunk upon Chriſtmas day, then upon all, or upon any one Sunday in the year? And have not preachers and magiſtrates been as induſtrious to caſt out this profane Spirit on the Lords day and been as unſucceſsful in their indevours? And ſhall this be any argument for the abolition of that day?
Next, ſaith he, the heathen uſages in it (almoſt yielded §. 2.) as they imply that the feſtival was inſtituted to gratify the heathen, ſo God to ſhew his diſlike of them, hath ſuffered them to be attended with two extremes of true worſhip, ſuperſtition and profaneneſs. But to this I ſay, 1. that the heathen uſages were no way yielded §. 2. but only an argument uſed ad homines that ſo affirmed. 2. If there were heathen uſages in it, thoſe would no way imply the Feſtival to have been inſtituted to gratifie the heathens, It was inſtituted to the honor of Chriſt, and the heathens were farre enough from being gratified with that, and tis ſufficient if the converted heathens, among whom it was inſtituted by their converters, did of themſelves aſſume ſome of their Gentile cuſtomes by them thought innocent in the celebration.
3dly Tis great preſumption and intruſion into Gods ſecreteſt Counſels, to ſay that Gods ſuffering this Feſtival to be attended with ſuperſtition or profaneneſs was to ſhew his diſlike if not detestation of it; For who revealed this counſel of Gods to this Diatribist? Beſides, how eaſily might this argument be retorted on the Lords day by a Jew, and all the riot and unprofitableneſs of hearers on that day be made an evidence of Gods diſlike if not detestation of the ſetting apart of this day to his ſervice? What impiety of any Sect would want arguments to ſupport it, if ſuch as theſe might be admitted? Now laſtly, the matter of the preſent debate being only that of riot, what had ſuperstition or profaneneſs (either or both) to do with that?
His 19th §. is the accuſing thoſe who keep up and cry up the cuſtome of the festivity, yet have taken liberty to lay aſide hoſpitality and charity not only at the time, but all the year long. To which it is ſufficient to anſwer, that then it ſeems, their hoſpitality is not the occaſion of riot to any, and that is a Competent means of vindicating the festivity ſo farre from that part of the accuſation, which now we have before us.
But then 2dly it were perhaps worth examining what degree of truth there is in the ſuggeſtion, and in what inſtances it is founded; ſomething like this he had once ſuggeſted before, and I had then thought that it was not worthy taking notice of, But now the returning of it again more ſolemly makes me ſuſpect there may be ſomewhat in it; And having no other clue to introduce me into his ſecrets, and the charity and hoſpitality of thoſe that have caſt off the feſtivals, and with it their obedience to the Church, beyond thoſe that have retained both, having never been ſo notorious, that I could take cognizance of it, and the writing a Diatribe againſt all freewill oblations in a Chriſtian, being no vehement indication that thoſe in whoſe defence it was written, were very eminent in the exerciſe of thoſe virtues, I began to pitch upon one thing that might of late have yielded ſome ſhew of truth to his obſervation, viz. that the condition of many mens worldly plenty hath been ſo changed of late, that the men have been forced to abate ſomewhat of the degree of that charity and hoſpitality that formerly they had both ability and will to exerciſe, and that theſe fall out to be the men that retain obedience to the Church of England, and ſo keep up and cry up the feſtivals of the Church, though they are not able to keep up the good cheer of it in that degree, which formerly they have done.
And if the Diatribiſt was willing to take notice of this turne of the tyde, and being himſelf one of the proſperous party that had caſt off obedience and feſtivals, but retained hoſpitality and charity, was willing to compare himſelf with others who being deprived of all their revenues, were not likely to hold up their hoſpitality, then ſure this is a way of anſwer which might ſoon be retorted, if juſtice were allowed to take place, and every man were reinveſted in his own again.
In the mean, thoſe that are deprived of ability to be charitable on one ſide, as to be occaſions of riot on the other, if they muſt be reproacht for their defects in one, ſhould not in reaſon be accuſed for exceſs in the other: And that is all I ſhall reply to this anſwer.
Unleſſe to the 2d part of it I reply in a word, that the hoſpitality attendant on this Feſtival was never by me defined or imagined, and is with no juſtice by him ſuppoſed to be a miſers feaſt, nor know I any the leaſt neceſſity that it ſhould be followed with a neglect of charity all the year after, but rather that it be lookt on as a copy which the whole life of a Chriſtian is to tranſcribe from this manner of ſolemnizing the birth of Christ, as a firſt fruits of this duty then paid, as a pledge of the future harveſt, as a ſolemn entrace on that duty then, which in ſome degree is to be exerciſed all the year after.
In his 20 §. having in the firſt part of it deſired no more of me, then that in caſe of notorious abuſe I will believe there is place and ſeaſon for reformation (which I moſt willingly yield, being, as he knowes, as inclineable and deſirous as he or any man, that all exceſſes ſhould be reformed, and never indured among Christians of all other men in the world) his concluſion hath very fairly taken in one term more then was in the premiſſes, and to reformation of exceſſe, annexed of the Festivity it ſelf, meaning evidently, according to the modern ſtyle, abolition by reformation; For elſe, after all his dexterities, it will not do his buſineſs.
For that all exceſs ſhould be aboliſhed, that the Festivity ſhould be drained from all ſuch unchriſtian mixtures, and reformed in that meeker ſenſe, was viſibly the deſigne of the Section to which this of his was confronted; And that, it ſeems, will not ſerve the turn, but as if reformation were never reformation, unleſſe like the breaking in of the Ocean it ſweep and carry away all before it, as if our Dictionaries were to be changed, and that word were to be gloſſed by nothing but vaſtation and depopulation, all that I had ſaid of reformation of exceſſes ſignifies nothing with him, unleſſe the Feſtivity it ſelf be reformed alſo, and that juſt as Epiſcopacy was to be reformed, by being turned out of the Church.
And all the reaſon which is offered for this (viz. becauſe the Feſtivity hath ordinarily been attended with ſuch miſchiefs without the leaſt attempt of reformation) if it have any the leaſt truth in it, is viſibly a reaſon for the contrary; For is it not madneſſe to deſtroy the vineyard, before any leaſt attempt hath been made to dreſſe or manure it, to cut down the tree before ever it was once digged about? were it reconcileable with any tolerable ſobriety to aboliſh the Lords day upon any, much more upon ſuch an account as this of riot and drunkenneſſe ordinarily attending it, without ever giving the offender the firſt or ſecond admonition, without ever attempting to reform it? Certainly the rules of ſober diſcipline are directly the contrary, to attempt and deligently indevour the reformation of the exceſs, and never to proceed to ſeverer remedies, till the evil is experimented to be not only obſtinate but deſperate, and yet then too, to divide betwixt the nocent and guiltleſſe, and not involve both in the ſame condemnation; And arguments muſt ſure be very ſcanty, when thoſe come to be uſed for the affirmative, which were proper only for the negative; And yet thus is it at this time with the Diatribiſt.
But his 21th §. offers us an example of this deſtructive, exterminative reformation, St Paul's diſcipline on the feaſts of charity by way of deſtruction and abolition, when they began to be abuſed to ſurfetting and drunkenneſs, 1 Cor. 11. 17. But herein are good ſtore of miſtakes, For 1. If that place to the Corinths be examined, it is moſt evident that it was the Lords Supper, into which that exceſs was crept, and accordingly as he tells them v. 20. that this is not to eate the Lords Supper, ſo for the reforming of what was amiſs, he tells them what the inſtitution of Chriſt was in it, and there expreſſely ſets down the firſt inſtitution of the Lords Supper, In the night he was betrayed he took bread, v. 24. &c. And then I muſt demand, did St. Paul deſtroy and aboliſh this feaſt wherein theſe abuſes were obſerved? if he did, he aboliſht the Lords Supper, and then here is indeed an inſtance home to his purpoſe: But if he did not, why did the Diatribiſt tender us this inſtance, when he knows that drunkenneſs and moſt unworthy behaviour at the Sacrament never ſuggeſted to the Apoſtle the leaſt thought of aboliſhing or diſuſing the Sacrament.
But then 2. To grant him the utmoſt that he can wiſh in this matter, viz. that there were two parts of this foreign, Lords Supper, one in taking a morſel of bread, and taſting the wine, in commemoration of Chriſt's body and blood, another in eating and drinking together more liberally, after the former was done, and that this latter is it which is meant by Agapae in S. Jude, and that this latter was taken away out of the Church, upon the too common unreformable abuſes of it; yet ſtill this is nothing of advantage to the Diatribiſt; For ſtill this will but conclude that the carnal external part of the Feſtivity, the eating and drinking part, ſhould fall under this diſcipline, not the Spiritual more Chriſtian part, and tis evident one of theſe is as ſeparable from the other, as the Sacrament from the Agapae.
And thus much was willingly yielded to his hands in that §. to which his inſtance of the Love-feaſts was oppoſed, and tis certain no more can rationally, by any analogie, be concluded from it.
Nay 3. It was not poſſible any inſtance could have been brought more fitted for my turn (and ſo I hope not for his) then this of the Agapae. For when this diſorder at Corinth had brought this attendant on the Chriſtian feſtival under ſome cenſure, it was thus reformed, (as appears in Juſtine Martyrs Apologie, where he ſets down the whole courſe of the office) The offerings were not leſſened by this means, but otherwiſe diſpoſed of, and that which was not eaten at the Lords Table, was kept in a common bank for the poor, the Stranger, the Fatherleſs and Widow, and a very competent proviſion was made for all by this means.
And ſo truely in like manner, if upon a juſt inquiry it be found that the Chriſtmaſs liberality and hoſpitality ſtill ends in riot, and that there is no hope of reſtraint to be laid upon it, as it runnes in that channel, It is moſt obvious and eaſie for every ſober Chriſtian to turn the ſtream another way, to lay aſide for reliefe of the poor, that which was uſually laid out in the extraordinrry entertainments at this time, and as that is the utmoſt, to which the ſeverity uſed on the Agapae can extend, or ſuggeſt, ſo it is the very thing which was propoſed §. 20. but it ſeems cannot yet ſatisfie this Diatribiſt.
What in 22th §. he cenſures in me as pretty untempered mortar, will not, I believe, be found ſo, in any ſober judging. Tis onelyonly this, that though the eating and ſporting part of this feſtity be ſtrictly to be kept within bounds and as ſtrictly to be reformed wherein it hath been diſcerned to exceed (this had been ſet down before, and was now ſuppoſed) yet for abolition of all hoſpitality and recreation, or foreign remiſſion (as Nazianzen ſtyles it) at theſe times it was to be lookt on as a laſt remedy, and ſo not proceeded to till the diſeaſe were univerſally ſpreading and obſtinate againſt all cure, for whileſt it were lower then ſo, it was ſtill but the ſeaſon of reformation.
From whence that the Diatribiſt ſhould think fit to infer it my ſenſe (that he might accuſe me) that leſſe or leſſe generall abuſes need no reformation, there can be no tolerable account rendred, but only this, that his ears have been ſo accuſtomed to the new dialect, that of exterminative reformations, that he cannot think the word ſignifies any thing elſe, by whomſoever it is uſed, but (that which indeed it never ſignifies in any propriety of ſpeech) extirpation and abolition. In a word, I think there is no neceſſity of exciſion till the part begin to gangrene or corrupt and ſpread, yet I can admit of medicines long before, and heartily adviſe timely prudent applications, as ſoon as ever the patient begins in the leaſt meaſure to be diſtempered.
His 23th §. is the accuſing of thoſe that uſed cards on the Lords day after the evening ſervice, and the upbraiding their ſuperſtition that they will not touch cards or dice on Chriſtmas day; and the anſwer is ſufficient, that as I ſpake not a word of them that did thus, ſo I never heard of any that thus made a difference betwixt Chriſtmaſſe day and the Lords day, but that if they uſed that liberty on the later, they uſed it on the former too; However if by the Diatribiſt it were deemed criminous in the one, I ſhould have hoped he might have been gratified by hearing it was abſtained from in the other: For my own part I never allowed my ſelf the liberty on either, and know not that I ever ſaw it uſed, and therefore I am ſure there is nothing farther to be replied to by me in that §. I as heartily with a devout, conſcientious, profitable obſervation of the Lords day, as of any other Feſtivity, and cannot juſtly fall under the Diatribiſts cenſure for any thing I have ſo much as intimated in this matter.
And this I ſay the rather, becauſe §. 24. this is charged upon my doctrine as a crime, and a part of ſuperſtition, that the day hath been accounted more ſacred then the Lords day, and the proof brought out of my 20th §. where ſaith he, I call it moſt ſacred, and out of my 24th §. where I ſay it hath been kept if not much more, yet certainly as ſtrictly as any Lords day in the year.
But here is miſpriſion in each of theſe; The phraſe moſt ſacred §. 20. doth not at all belong to the day, (much leſſe to the preferring it before the Lords day in reſpect of ſacredneſſe) but only to a Chriſtian Feſtivity, as that is made up of prayer, praiſes, Euchariſt, charity, hoſpitality, &c: All which being put together I hope I could not offend in ſtyling it moſt ſacred, ſuch as the extravagant, irrational riots of men ought not to aſſault and pollute.
And for the 2d, there is no ſuch word as ſacred to be found in that 24th §. all that is ſaid is, that in this nation the day of the birth of Chriſt hath been kept (if not much more) certainly as ſtrictly as any Lords day in the year, and this interpreted moſt clearly by the following words) in frequenting the ſervices of the Church, in the uſe of the Liturgie, Sermon, Sncraments, &c. And I cannot imagine how this manner of ſtrict obſerving of it can be criminous in it ſelf, or to the prejudice of the Lords day, on which tis no news to ſay that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which I make an ingredient in the ſtrictneſſe of the celebration, and that which denominates it more ſtrict, is not conſtantly celebrated; and yet ſure no fault that it is conſtantly celebrated on Chriſtmas day.
However the ſtrictneſſe of obſerving is one thing, and the ſacredneſſe is another, Any private faſt may be more ſtrictly obſerved, more, or more ſevere ſtrictneſſe of duty allotted to it, then to the Lords day, and yet the Lords day, as ſet apart by the Apoſtles of Chriſt, in reſpect of that inſtitution, and of the reſurrection of Chriſt, to the commemorating whereof it was conſecrated, be eſteemed and lookt on as moſt ſacred. I need to ſay no more of that.
As for the ground which he pretends from his own knowledge, to aſſigne of my thus ſpeaking: viz. that we may make the Lords day and Feſtivals to be founded on the ſame authority, viz. of the Church, this he muſt very much diſſemble his knowledge, if he confeſſe not to be a miſtake alſo.
For in the margent he grants that I ſay that the Apoſtles inſtituted the Lords day §. 31. and ſo certainly I do (though I know not in what words of Scripture that inſtitution is ſet down) But, ſaith he, there be other words §. 57. which ſpeak of the Lords day by the ſame authority appointed. To which I anſwer that the words there uſed [though the Lords day be by the ſame authority appointed] belong not at all to the ſtating, of this queſtion, and being introduced in that form [though &c.] they are not any affirmation that the Lords day is not inſtituted by any higher authority then Chriſtmas day, but only a conceſſion of what was asked by the Quaeriſt, without ſo much as examining or inquiring into the utmoſt of the authority by which it ſtood. Of this I had ſufficiently expreſt my ſenſe §. 31. as the Diatribiſts margent confeſſes from me, viz. that the Apoſtles inſtituted the Lords day, whereas in that 57th §. I ſpeak as plainly of Chriſtmas day, that it hath its authority from the inſtitution and uſage of the Ʋniverſal Church; And if when the matter is ſo clear, and my meaning ſo expreſſe both for the one and the other, I muſt yet be accuſed for the contrary, and this be affirmed from the Diatribiſts knowledge to be my ground, viz. a deſigne to make the Lords day and Feſtivals to be founded on the ſame authority, and that by him ſpecified, viz. of the Church; Tis certainly moſt viſible, that either this is a calumny in the Diatribiſt, or elſe that the word Church muſt be ſo taken as to comprehend that part of it, of which the Apoſtles were rulers in perſon, and then what harm hath been in that ſpeech thus interpreted, the Church of the Apoſtles inſtituted the Lords day, and either they perſonally, or their ſucceſſors uſed and delivered down the other Feſtivals, the Feſtival of Eaſter being derived undoubtedly from the Apoſtles, Philip and John, Peter and Paul, as hath already clearly appeared out of the difference betwixt Victor and Polycrates; And other Feſtivals by the paſſages of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp, i. e. by evidence of ſtory being demonſtrated to be little later, though of Chriſtmaſſe this do not ſo expreſſely appear to me as to be any where affirmed by me.
But there is yet more of this captious diſcourſe behinde upon my ſaying that tis not uſual to touch cards or dice on Chriſtmas day, and this muſt adde either to our ſuperſtition or hypocriſie, our ſuperſtition, if they be lawful, in that they forbid them on that day, that God hath not forbidden them; Hypocriſie, if they be unlawful, in abſtaining then, and yet uſing them on ther days. But we ſhall ſoon be extricated from the power of this Dilemma, by affirming, 1. that thoſe ſports uſed moderately, as diverſions, and no way abuſed by our inordinacy, are not by any argument that ever I met with, proved to be toto genere, or abſolutely unlawful, and ſo that they may be uſed for divertiſement on other days, and particularly on the following days of that Feſtivity, and yet 2dly that they are no way neceſſary, and ſo that no man offends, that abſtains from them on all other days, and employs himſelf better conſtantly.
From whence it is neceſſarily conſequent alſo, that he that hath fed on the body and blood of Chriſt, and conſecrated himſelf in an extraordinary manner to commemorate the myſterie of our redemption on Chriſtmas day, and agreeably thereto, deſires to ſpend it ſo much more ſtrictly then other dayes, as not to admit thoſe ſports (which are lawful on other days) to divide any part of that, can never be criminous in ſo doing.
As for any thing of riot (but ſuch is not all lawful divertiſement) on the following days, he knowes they are no way pleaded for by me, and if any be guilty of them, as the ſhame thereof is due to the offenders, not to the feſtival, which is innocent and laudable; ſo tis too well known that the Lords day it ſelf hath not been ſecured from the ſame unhappy adherences.
And it might as well be charged on that that the heathens worſhipt the Sun on that day, and that revelling upon it are fitter for ſuch heathen feaſts then for Chriſtians, as the Diatribiſt could ſuggeſt in this place that the Saturnalia were celebrated about the ſame time that Chriſtmas was, and that the exceſſes of the following dayes are ſervices fitter for the revels of Bacchus and Saturn or the birth day of Herod, then for the feſtivity of a ſpiritual Saviour. All this is true, and equally granted by both parties, and ſo hath no propriety or pertinency to the diſpute between us.