An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 16
Sect. 16. Chriſtmas, if of the ſame original with Eaſter, certainly Apoſtolical. However, of the practice of the Primitive Church. All rendring of motives no foreign.
MY 27th §. was introductory to a diſcourſe more general, to ſhew by what authority, feſtivals in general, and particularly this of Chriſtmas, pretends to ſtand in the Catholike Church, which I acknowledged not to be by any inſtitution of Chriſts, but to have had the beginning from the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding Church.
To the view hereof he now proceeds, and briefly ſets to it, to diſprove each of theſe originals, beginning firſt with that of the Apoſtles. And of this he thinks he need ſay no more, then to appeal to the ſame arguments which he had uſed againſt the Apoſtles inſtitution of Eaſter §. 6. viz. 1. the no mention of ſuch inſtitution in the Scripture; 2. the expreſſe words of Socrates, that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles commanded the feaſt of Eaſter to be obſerved.
But to both theſe it is certain that I ow no return having now paid it ſo punctually in the 4h §. where beſide clear anſwers to the Diatribiſts arguments, I added evidences undeniable that the feaſt of Eaſter was obſerved by the Apoſtles, And I cannot doubt but they will be of force with him, when he ſhall take leiſure to weigh them; And then if the caſe ſhall be acknowledged the ſame betwixt Eaſter & Chriſtmaſſe, that of the reſurrection & this of the birth of Chriſt (as the Diatribiſt ſeems to acknowledge in tendring no one argument more againſt the Apoſtolicalneſs of Chriſtmaſs, then he had before produced againſt the inſtitution of Eaſter by them) then it is evident my affirmation muſt aſcend higher then it ever meant to have done, and not proceed disjunctively, that this feaſt of the nativity is derived either from the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding Church, but leaving out the latter part of the partition, fix upon the former, that, being yielded to have the ſame original with Eaſter, it is certainly derived from the Apoſtles, from whence it appears that of Eaſter is derived.
To which purpoſe we have already produced ſome evidences which may juſtly pretend to ſome force, at leaſt ad hominem, to him that hath no more againſt this, then againſt all other Chriſtian feſtivals, viz. thoſe from the martyrdomes of Ignatius and Polycarp, written by thoſe that were preſent at them, and ſo lived ſoon after the Apoſtles.
That of Polycarps recorded in that famous Epiſtle of the Church of Smyrna, I have ſet down at large, and made my inferences from it § §. 33. and 34. of that treatiſe of Feſtivals, To which I have here formerly added that other parallel teſtimony from the acts of Ignatius.
So that now I hope I may ſafely reſume my former affirmation, without all diffidence, that other Feſtivals beſide that of the weekly Lords day, were derived to us, ſome certainly from the Apoſtles, others from the Church immediately ſucceeding the Apoſtles; In one of which ranks though I have no reaſon to doubt but this of the Nativity of Chriſt is to be placed, yet becauſe we have not thoſe evidences of the fact which we have for Eaſter and others, I ſhall not build upon any degree of uncertainties, nor affirm more then what that treatiſe hath ſhewed out of the ancient Fathers, that this feaſt is deduced to us early from the firſt antiquity.
And againſt this I am ſure neither Socrates nor my L. of Falkland (who is joyned next to him) hath ſuggeſted any thing; & then what was thus done by them, muſt not in equity fare the worſe for my adding the mention of a motive or incitement that might reaſonably recommend it to them, which is therefore preſently ſtyled foreign, a ſhew of wiſdom, as if all reaſonable motives were to be blaſted under that title, as all uncommanded performances here are ſaid to be by the expreſs words of the 2d Commandment, & Col. 2. 23. But ſure we have formerly ſpoken enough of this arguing.