An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 20
Sect. 20. Strictures on §. 35. The author of the Conſtitutions a competent teſtifier when in accord with others. Juſtinus's edict for Feſtivals reconcileable with the Apoſtolical uſage of them. The 20000 ſlain by Diocletian on Chriſtmaſs day. Objections againſt the 25th of December anſwered. The controverſie in Chryſoſtome about the day, not the Feaſt. foreign. His words full for the Apoſtolicalneſs of both.
WHat now followes §. 35, is ſo far from having weight in it, that I muſt not allot any ſolemn anſwers to it, the lighteſt ſtrictures will be more proportionable.
As when of my mention of the Author of the Conſtitutions he ſaith, this will weaken my cauſe the more, becauſe they are generally accounted ſpurious, This ſure muſt be very unjuſt, that what was confirmed ſo newly from Origen, Cyprian, and Chryſoſtome, ſhould not only not gain, but loſe ſtrength by the addition of the Conſtitutions, which beſides that they are acknowledged ancient by all which leaſt believe them Apoſtolical, are known to be deſigned to imitate that antiquity they pretend to, and are never juſtly rejected, but when that which they affirm is found diſcordant to the affirmations of other writings of undoubted antiquity, which having no place here, there is as little room for the Diatribiſts cenſure.
So what he concludes from Juſtinus's edict (which I mentioned) that it was a proof that the Apoſtles did not inſtitute it, is already anſwered by ſaying that the Apoſtles practice being all that is pretended for the inſtitution, the edict of the Emperour for the Ʋniverſal obſervation of it is very reconcileable with that, (and ſo alſo with the uſage of the firſt ages after the Apoſtles in caſe it be divolved no higher then theſe, as the ſeveral decrees of Magiſtrates Civil and Eccleſiaſtical for an univerſal obſervation of the Lords day are ſure perfectly reconcileable with the Apoſtolical original thereof.
And this was there evidenced by the 20000 Chriſtians that were burnt by Diocletian on this day (ſure long before that edict of Iuſtinus (at which time ſaith the Niceph: l. 7. c. 6.Hiſtorian, foreign, all that were called Chriſtians of all ages aſſembled in the Church to celebrate the nativity, And to that, it ſeems he hath no other return, but his advertiſement that Nicephorus ſaith it was Maximinus, that was thus bloody, Maximianus, I ſuppoſe he would have ſaid, who reigned with Diocletian, and then it comes to the ſame paſſe, and the truth is acknowledged, which ſoever the name were.
So againſt reſolving the day of this feſtival to be Decemb. 25. his proofs are extraordinary; 1. from the Doctor himſelf, that it was called Midwinter day, which is a fortnight before. But that hath already been anſwered, the variation being evidenced to be from the want of exactneſſe in our Calendars, not from any doubt of the day.
2dly From the opinion of many Divines, that our Lord died when he was 33 and halfyears of age, or neer unto 34, as ſaith he, the Doctor ſaith, Qu. 1. §. 10. What Divines theſe are that thus calculate, I am not told, nor how competent they are to be confronted to the cenſual Tables, from whence S. Chryſoſtome fetches the day of his birth: But the luck of it is, that citation from the Doctor was eaſily conſulted, and on view of the place, there is no more but this, that Chriſt preacht the will of his Father three years or foure together, which I thought had ſignified no more then for ſome uncertain ſpace betwixt 3 or 4 yeears; And if he were born in December and died in April, what difficulty is there in this calculation? or what needed the Diatribiſt to have cited from the Doctor the words [neer 34.] when he knowes there is nothing to that ſenſe ſaid by him?
The 3d thing (without which his undertaking to mention many, will be a faileur) which may make us doubt of the truth of the calculation, is the yonger date of the Arabick Codex of the Councels; But when that Codex was dated, he hath not told us, And if it were later then I thought, it may yet poſſibly ſpeak truth, and ſo that will give us no reaſon of doubting.
His laſt proof is, that the Doctor is upon Ifs, and Tis probable, And I heartily wiſh the Diatribiſt would but ſpeak probably, and till he doth ſo, that he would not have ſuch averſions to the Doctors Ifs, I mean, that he would uſe diffidence, when he pretends not to demonſtrate.
I adde nothing to his returns about the Epiphany, but leave them to be judged by the §§. to which they are oppoſed.
And for the large view of the place in Chryſoſtome, and his diſpute againſt that Father, my anſwer is very brief, that all that I attempted to prove from Chryſoſtome, was the due timing of the feaſt on the 25th of December, and that being done beyond controverſie, I pretend not to derive other deciſions from that teſtimonie, but leave them to ſtand on their own baſis.
Only when from ſome words of Chryſoſtome, he at length concludes the authority of the Church in conſtituting, and celebrating this feſtival in all ages much ſhaken, I muſt reminde him that that Fathers words which affirm it a queſtion at that time, belong not to the Feſtivity it ſelf, but only to the foreign.particularity of the day, whether it were to be kept on the 25th of December or on ſome other day, and accordingly his proofs proceed, foreign that this is the very time; And though ſome doubted whether this were a new, or the foreign ancient day of the feſtivity, yet ſaith he, others defended it, foreign, foreign, that it was old & antient (or original, ſo foreign from foreign ſignifies, and is all one with l. 1. contr. Marc. c. 5.Tertullians quod ab initio, as that with quod ab Apoſtolis) and from theſe ancient, if not theſe firſt timas (as foreign commonly imports, and ſo again in Ib.Tertullian, ordo ad originem recenſus) it hath been manifeſt and illuſtrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira, from Eaſt to Weſt, that ſure with him ſignifies, all the world over.
And ſo ſtill this diſpute, which ſide ſoever was in the right, is founded in a ſuppoſition of the feaſt it ſelf being foreign and foreign original and from the beginning, And indeed if the firſt proof which he offers for it be conſidered, tis not imaginable how he ſhould ſay more to the aſſerting of the Apoſtolicalneſſe both of the Feſtivity and the day alſo.
That this is the ſeaſon, ſaith he, on which Chriſt was born, the firſt demonſtration is foreign, that the feaſt was ſo ſpeedily promulgate every where, & aſcended to ſo great an height, & flouriſht, adding that as Gamaliel ſaid of the preaching of the Goſpel, that if it were of men it would come to nought, but if of God, ye cannot diſſolve it, leſt ye be found fighters againſt God, the ſame he might ſay confidently foreign of this day (not of the Goſpel, as the Diatribiſt afterward ſaith, he thinks he means, but cannot really do ſo in this place, againſt ſuch foreignexpreſſe words) that foreign, ſeeing, or becauſe it is from God, therefore tis not only not diſſolved, but every year advances, and becomes more ſplendid, and yet farther adding (in the words recited by the Diatribiſt, and by omitting the former, rendred capable of being miſunderſtood) foreign, ſeeing the preaching (of it certainly, i. e. of the day, or elſe it can have no coherence with the feaſt or antecedents and whole contexture) in a few years took poſſeſſion of the whole world, though tentmakers and fiſhermen, unlearned and idiots brought it amongſt them.
How farre this is now from doing prejudice to the Ʋniverſal obſervation of this day in the Apoſtles times, I leave the Reader (and, if he pleaſe, the Diatribiſt alſo) to conſider.