An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 17
Sect. 17. The Encaenia, a religious feaſt inſtituted by the the Iewes, and approved by Chriſt, vindicated from all his exceptions. Marriage feaſts. Religious feaſts cannot be unlawful, if civil be lawful. The feaſt of Purim a religious feaſt.
THE 29th §. proceeds to conſider what I had ſaid of the Encaenia among the Jewes, the feaſt of dedication not inſtituted by God in the Law, but in commemoration of the purging of the altar by Judas Maccabeus, and yet this obſerved by the Jewes, and approved by Chriſts preſence at it, Joh: 10. 23.
To this the Diatribiſt anſwers, that there may be many miſtakes in this, And truly it matters not how many there may be, as long as there appears not to be any one.
Firſt then his anſwer is, that there were three feaſts of dedication, and I cannot but know that learned men are divided of which it's here meant. But how can this firſt anſwer be of any avail, when I that took notice, as he confeſſes, of the three, made it evident that the place was meant of the third, that inſtituted in the Maccabees, and the Diatribiſt cannot deny but it's probable ſo it was, and offers not to anſwer the proofs, or to pretend ought for either of the two former againſt this.
His 2d anſwer is, that granting it to be the laſt, yet there are reaſons to think it was not a religious Feſtival but a civil, as the feaſt of Purim ſeems to be, Eſth: 9. 21, 22. But it is not imaginable the Diatribiſt ſhould thus think, or be perſwaded by theſe reaſons.
His reaſon is from the words 1 Mac. 4. 59. They ordered it ſhould be kept yearly with mirth and gladneſſe, adding that though it be ſaid v. 56. they offered burnt-offerings, yet that was v. 53. according to the law, and ſo was worſhip commanded.
Now truly this I thought had been ſufficient proof, that this was a religious feaſt, and it was great ſurprize to me to ſee it brought to inferre the contrary: For what greater evidence can there be brought of a religious feaſt, then this, of which out of the Story he hath ſet down a conſiderable portion, but lies in the Maccabees more completely thus.
Now on the 25th day of the Ninth monethmonth (which is called the MonethMonth Caſleu) in the 148th year they roſe up betimes in the morning and offered ſacrifice according to the law upon the now altar of burnt-offering which they had made; look at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it, even upon that was it dedicated with ſongs & citherns, harps & cymbals; Then all the people fell upon their faces worſhipping & praiſing the God of heaven who had given them good ſucceſſe, and ſo they kept the dedication of the altar 8 days, and offered burnt-offerings with gladneſſe; and ſacrificed the ſacrifice of deliverance and praiſe &c. and then v. 59. Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Iſrael ordained that the days of the dedication of the altar ſhould be kept in their ſeaſon from year to year by the ſpace of eight days from the 25 day of the monethmonth Caſleu with mirth and gladneſſe.
And now I ſhall ask the Diatribiſt, Is there any reaſon to think this was not a religious feſtival, nay is it poſſible for him to give any account, why in ſetting down the paſſages of it, he ſhould omit the peoples falling upon their faces, worſhipping and praiſing the God of heavens and ſacrificing the ſacrifices of deliverance and praiſe, together with Judas and his brethren and the congregation (which is not God, as hath hitherto been pretended it ought to be from the 2d and 4th Commandment) ordaining that it ſhould be ſo kept for the future from year to year?
Do not thoſe paſſages take away all poſſibility of doubting, either of the religiouſneſſe of the Feſtival, or the inſtitution by man and not by God? And is there now againſt all this any force in the words v. 53. [according to the law] which the Diatribiſt confronts to the mention of burnt-offerings, as an anſwer, or reaſon, why that which was kept with burnt-offerings, was yet no religious feaſt? May not burnt-offerings according to the law, ſuch as the Moſaical law approves of, yea and commands to be uſed for burnt-offerings, be uſed in a religious feaſt? what was ever ſuggeſted by any diſputer with leſſe appearance of truth or probability? He knowes that in the free will offerings there were yet laws given by Moſes according to which they were to offer, and why ſhould it not be ſo in a feaſt ordained by Judas? would he imagine that illegal offerings ſhould have been ſought out for it, to conſtitute it a religious feaſt?
Here ſure was matter of conviction to the Diatribiſt, I ſhall not inquire why it did not prevail with him. Only of this I am ſure, that if this one inſtance had been permitted to appear, what indeed it is, and now is viſibly demonſtrated to be a religious feaſt inſtituted by the Church of the Jewes, and not by God, and yet approved by him, there can never need any farther evidence to confute and demonſtrate the vanity of all his three Diatribae of Superſtitition, Will-worſhip, Feſtivals, his ſuggeſtions from ſuperſtatutum, from additions to the word, from the 2d and 4th Commandments, from Col. 2. whether as it mentions Will-worſhip or the Commands of men.
Our Chriſtmas feſtivity, ſuppoſing the utmoſt that he can wiſh, that it was not obſerved by the Apoſtles, but inſtituted by the Church, be two or three hundred years after Chriſt, being perfectly anſwerable to this of the dedication, and ſo demonſtrated, by analogie with that, to be approved by Chriſt.
And therefore it was but neceſſary that this evidence ſhould by all convenient means be rendred uneffectual, All the unhappineſſe of it was, that the matter would not yield any ſuch, and ſo the Diatribiſt was to content himſelf with ſuch as we have now diſcovered.
And becauſe he could not but foreſee it poſſible, that they would be thus diſcovered, and that yet it will be (more then) ſaid that it was a religious feaſt and ſo obſerved, he therefore hath a 3d anſwer in reſerve, Then ſaith he, it may be fairly ſuggeſted that they went beyond their commiſſion in making this feaſt annual and perpetual, which neither Solomon nor Zorobabel did theirs, for ought we read.
Here are again the clear ſymptomes of a deſperate cauſe, that fain would catch at ſome ſupports, but is forſaken of all. Tis evident Judas and his brethren and the whole congregation ordained that it ſhould be kept thus from year to year, 1 Mac. 4. 59. and as evident that it was … obſerved by the Jews even in Chriſts time, and as evident ſtill that Chriſt was preſent at that feaſt (and ſo approved of and confirmed it) Ioh. 10. 23. And yet ſaith he, it may be fairly ſuggeſted that they went beyond their commiſſion in making this feaſt annual, what again could have been ſaid more unluckily then this, more contrary to expreſſe evidence in every degree of it?
Adde to this 2. that even both of the two other feaſts of dedication, at the erecting the Temple in Solomons, and reedifying it in Zorobabels time, if they were annual, were fully parallel with this, and that they were ſo, was by this Diatribiſt affirmed to be the opinion of learned men, in this very page, who, ſaith he, interpreted the place of John 10. ſome of the one, ſome of the other of theſe, which twere ridiculous for them to doe, if it were not annual.
Nay laſtly, ſuppoſing theſe two were never obſerved above once a peece, I ſhall now demand, why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often, or annually and ordinarily, as for one turn and extraordinarily? If the firſt offended not by being ſuper ſtatutum, how could the ſecond or hundredth or thouſandth repetition render it criminous? Tis not imaginable what reaſon can be given for this, that what was lawful laſt year, ſhall be impious this year; what ground of ſo great difference, that one ſhould be approved, the other condemned, one not only innocent but commendable, and the other (i. e. the ſame received into conſtant annual practice) repudiated and rejected.
And yet in this, it ſeems, all the difference lies all this while, extraordinary days of thanksgiving for one turn ſaith he, he accounts lawfull to be done by the higher powers, and ſo extraordinary days of humiliation; From whence I conclude, that if King Lucius 1400 years agoe kept Chriſtmas day for one turn and no more, and ſo Good Friday alſo, he had the Diatribiſts leave to do it very freely and lawfully; But if when he had done ſo once, he ſhall offer to do it again, the next year, then Mr. C. muſt needs write Triplicem Diatriben againſt him.
What he yet farther addes as a laſt miſtake in me, will be ſoon found of the ſame rank with the former. Another miſtake, ſaith he, is this, that that feaſt was approved and confirmed by Chriſts preſence at it, whereas, ſaith he, the text produced ſayes no ſuch thing, but only thus, It was at Jeruſalem (mark that, not at the Temple) not elſewhere, the feaſt of the dedication, and v. 22. Jeſus walked in the Temple, ſo he did other days, any day when no feaſt was &c.
I wiſh we were at an end of this kinde of arguing, for it will not eaſily be paralleld in any Diatribiſt, All that is by me affirmed from the text, is that Chriſt was preſent at it, the reſt is my deduction from thence, and I hope I have not offended therein, For is not that an evidence of Chriſts approbation, and ſo confirmation of it? would Chriſt have been preſent at an unlawful, nay (as this muſt be by the Diatribiſts divinity) ſuperſtitious deteſtable feaſt, wherein the 2d and 4th Commandments were directly violated by the very keeping of it, and never have reprehended it? would he not have ſcourged it and diſpatcht it out of the Temple, as he did that huckstring cuſtome of buying and ſelling there, and expreſt as great impatience againſt ſuch ſuperſtitious violations, as thoſe other profanations of his Fathers houſe? would not his preſence at the Feaſt have had the ſcandal of ſuperſtition, if the Feaſt it ſelf had had that crime in it?
What now he appoints to be markt, that this Feaſt was at Jeruſalem, not at the Temple, is very ſtrange. For if it were a religious Feaſt (as hath already appeared it was from the ſtory of the inſtitution in the Maccabees) then ſure it was in the Temple, and ſo at Jeruſalem, where the Temple was. And what if Jeſus walkt in the Temple on other days, when no feaſt was, doth it therefore follow that now it was not the Feaſt, when he walked there, and when the text ſaith expreſſely that it was the Feaſt? This is a new ſort of arguing ſtill, and this may be reiterated more turnes then one, and yet nothing amiſſe in it.
What hath thus farre been ſaid by him of the Encaenia, is appliable, ſaith he, to my ſecond inſtance among the Jewes, the feſtivities of marriage, For marriage it ſelf, ſaith he, is a civil thing and not religious. But I ſhall not engage farther in new controverſies, having enow before me already (elſe ſure mariage might be approved to be religious) I ſhall only need to demand on this head of diſcourſe, what the difference is between a civil, and a religious feſtivity? I ſhall ſuppoſe onelyonly this, that in the one the publike ſervices of the Church, among Chriſtians, prayers, Pſalmes, Sermon, Euchariſt, (ſome or all of them) are uſed, as among the Jewes, ſacrifices, &c. adding to theſe feſtival diet alſo, whereas the other is made up only of the latter.
And then ſuppoſing one of theſe (as the Diatribiſt granteth) lawfull among the Jewes, and ſo among Chriſtians at the celebration of mariages, I ſhall demand how it is poſſible, the other ſhould be unlawful? Can the ſervices of the Church being added make that criminous, which was innocent before? Tis poſſible indeed for a profane mixture (ſuch as riot, &c.) to defame and pollute that, which is moſt ſacred, but have the ſacred offices of the Church that ſame accurſed force in them, to make that which was but civil before, ſacrilegious and impious? This is another rarity, that I had not formerly been acquainted with.
But before I leave this matter I muſt take in, what he hath in like manner affirmed of the feaſt of Purim among the Iewes, of which though having made mention in the Practical Catechiſme, I added no more in the Treatiſe of Feſtivals, yet there cannot be any thing more pertinent to our preſent debates, this being without any direction from God, voluntarily inſtituted by the Iews not only for one turn, but as an eſtabliſhment among them, on the 14th and 15th day of the monethmonth Adar yearly, Heſt. 9. 21. Now of this he takes notice by the way §. 29. (treating of the Encaenia) and ſaith of it as of the other, that it ſeems to be a religious feſtival, but a civil; But this again without the leaſt ſhew of probability.
I ſhall need go no farther then the text to demonſtrate it, Heſt. 9. There v. 16. the Iewes had reſt from their enemies, and thereupon v. 17. on the 13th day, and 14th of the monethmonth Adar reſted they, & made it a day of feaſting and gladneſs and v. 18. The Jews that were at Shuſhan aſſembled together on the 13th day, & the 14th day thereof; & on the 15th they reſted & made it a day of feaſting & gladneſſe, and v. 19. the Iewes of the villages made the 14th day of the monethmonth Adar a day of gladneſſe and feaſting, and a good day, and of ſending portions one to another, Here I cannot but ſuppoſe that a day of reſt, of aſſembly, of feaſting, and gladneſſe, a good day (i. e. in their ſtyle a feſtival day) a day of hoſpitality and charity, ſending of portions (foreign, ſuch as in a ſacrifical feaſt) will to any impartial readerpaſſe for an indication of a religious feaſt.
And as theſe days were obſerved for the firſt turn, ſo they are eſtabliſht for a yearly obſervation, v. 21. 22. And the Iewes ordained, and took upon them, and upon their ſeed, and upon all ſuch as joined themſelves to them, ſo as it ſhould not fail, that they would keep theſe two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year, v. 27.
What could be more expreſſe for the religiouſneſs, and for the eſtabliſhment for continuance; and this ſtill a feaſt inſtituted by the Iewes, and not by God himſelf, and ſo as clear an inſtance, on our ſide of the matter conteſted, as is imaginable.