An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 8
Sect. 8. How the compariſon holds between the Lords day and Chriſtmas day. Inſtitution, uſage Apoſtolical for Feſtivals. No law in Scripture for the Lords day.
NOw followes his view of what I had ſaid of the Lords day, not inſtituted by Chriſt, or God himſelf but by the Apoſtles, without any mention in the New Teſtament of any preſcription or law for the obſerving of it.
To this he is very glad to proceed, hoping for ſome great advantage from it; let us ſee what the ſucceſs will prove.
And 1. ſaith he, there want not learned men who think that Chriſt did deſigne the day. But I muſt demand whether he can imagine that thoſe learned men were in the right in this, or have herein expreſt any of their learning? If he cannot think they have, why doth he loſe time and gain nothing by the mention of them? If he can, why doth he not ſo much as offer their grounds of thus opining, when he knowes nor Scripture nor antiquity ſaith any thing of it, and when it were as tolerable in any oppoſer to offer his opinion alſo, that Chriſtmaſs day was by Chriſt himſelf deſigned alſo.
But then 2dly ſaith he, if the Apoſtles did inſtitute it, that's more then he dare ſay of Chriſtmaſs day. And what if it be? Doth that prejudge the obſerving of Chriſtmaſs, ſuppoſing it certain (as I do ſuppoſe) that it was either of the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding Church? Suppoſe ſome feaſts of the Iewes inſtituted by God or Moſes, others by the Church of the Iewes, and not by Moſes, as the Purim and Encaenia, Are not theſe latter as lawfully to be kept to all poſterity of the Iews, as thoſe former?
But then 2dly the parallel that I ſet betwixt the Lords day and Chriſtmaſs day, was only this, that as neither of them was found preſcribed, or by law commanded in Scripture, ſo the want of ſuch law ſhould be no prejudice to the one, more then to the other, as long as by ſome other way it appeared of the one, that it was derived from the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding Church, as of the other, that it came immediatly from the Apoſtles; It being evident that if the Apoſtles uſage gave to one a divine authority, the uſage of the ſucceeding Church muſt be next to that, though not divine, and the latter lawful, yea and obligatory, as well, though not in ſo high a degree, as the former, as the Encaenia were as lawful, as the Paſsover, and were obligatory alſo, though not by the ſame authority. By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the obſerving of Chriſtmaſs, though there ſhould be no certainty of the Apoſtles inſtituting it.
Next he demands, If the Lords day was inſtituted by the Apoſtles of Chriſt, do not their inſtitutions carry in them divine preſcription or Law? I anſwer, that if by inſtitution be meant giving Law for the obſervation of it, then there is no doubt of his propoſition, the predication being identical, inſtitution in this ſenſe, is preſcribing, or giving Law.
But 'tis poſſible that inſtitution of the Lords day by the Apoſtles] may ſignifie another thing, viz. that the Apoſtles practice, aſſembling weekly on the Lords day, ſhould have the force of an inſtitution, or a Law with the ſucceeding Church, though indeed the Apoſtles gave no Law for it, or if they did, no ſuch Law appears from them.
The examples of the Apoſtles are the onelyonly way of conveying ſome uſages to us without any their preſcript Law; And accordingly in this ſenſe alſo I conſent to the Diatribiſt, that their inſtitutions carry in them divine preſcription or Law, and ſo I ſhall no way contend with him in this matter.
OnelyOnly upon theſe grounds, I ſhall demand, that whatſoever elſe ſhall be in the ſame manner derived to us, through all ages of the Church, from the times of the Apoſtles themſelves, may be acknowledged alſo to carry a divine impreſſion upon it. And then, to omit Epiſcopacy (which he cannot but know hath perfectly as much to be ſaid for it in every reſpect as the Lords day) I ſhall inſiſt onelyonly on the feaſt of Eaſter, which hath been demonſtrated to be derived from the Apoſtles, and ſo is an inſtance of all that I pretend in the point of Feſtivals, leaving Chriſtmaſs day to the equity of proportion, and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it.
Next he proceeds to what I farther ſay, of the no Law, that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day. In order to which I ſaid, that if any thing of that nature be ſought there, it will rather appear to belong to the annual, then weekly feaſt of the reſurrection, naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. foreign let us keep the feaſt, and the mention of foreign, the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. by ſome thought to belong to the annual day alſo.
Againſt theſe he urgeth ſome authorities of ſome ancient and modern writers, which, ſaith he, do not ſeem to underſtand theſe places thus. And though twere no impoſſible thing to anſwer thoſe teſtimonies, yet I ſhall never diſcourage him in that very reaſonable courſe of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers, and other ſuch Learned men, but yielding him all he deſires of both theſe places, I muſt only deſire him to remember, that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me, unleſſe he can bring out of the Scripture ſome other places, which are more apodicticall evidences of Apoſtolicall Law for the weekly Lords day, then theſe are for the annual; For the matter is clear, all that I was there to prove, was no more but this, that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them.