An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 21

An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe · Chapter 7 · Section 21

p. 292Sect. 21. The Diatribiſts anſwer to my concluſion. Strictures on ſome paſſages in it.

1WHat now remains is by way of reply to my concluſion, that the faſtidious rejecting or not obſerving the Feſtivals of the univerſal Church muſt be lookt on as an act of affected departure from the univerſal Church of Chriſt in all ages, and not only from the reformed Church of England.

2This, ſaith he, is an heavy charge, if it can be proved. And for that I muſt now referre my ſelf to the premiſſes in that treatiſe p. 293and in this defence, nor indeed can it be reaſonable that I deſcend to any other way of probation or vindication, till this which I have uſed be invalidated; For a concluſion being (as this is) deduced from the premiſses, what more can be required to eſtabliſh the concluſion, then the confirmation of the premiſſes?

3And therefore as it is againſt all laws of Diſcourſe for the Diatribiſt to confute or deny, or make anſwer to the concluſion, any otherwiſe then by refuting the media, which have inferred it; ſo muſt it be in me, to reply to ſuch offers of anſwer, which can never ſignifie any thing, as long as my premiſſes ſtand in force, eſpecially if it proceed by denying thoſe things, which this vindication hath undertaken to prove, without offering anſwer (as without the ſpirit of divination it could not) to thoſe proofs.

4For example, The Diatribiſt here begins with this affirmation, that I have not proved that the univerſal Church of the firſt age hath obſerved any of the Feſtivals, And I have here evidently proved that Eaſter was obſerved by Philip and Iohn the Apoſtle, and from them received by the Aſiaticks, or Eaſtern Chriſtians and ſo likewiſe by the Weſtern from S. Peter and S. Paul, and ſo ſure there is no farther need of refuting this affirmation.

5And the ſame might in like manner appear in each inſuing ſtep of his anſwer, and the rule by which he is content to be judged applied exactly to the condemning him in this very buſineſs of the Eaſter Feſtivity, which is of as much force, as if it equally appeared of every other of the great Feſtivals: But ſtill this were to repeat what hath here been already ſaid, and vindicated from all his exceptions.

6In ſtead whereof I ſhall only gather up what hath any thing of newes in it. And 1. let me admire his candor, when he will not ſtick to grant this rule to be good, that whatever doctrine or practice hath the concordant atteſtation of the Churches of the Apoſtolical time, while they were yet alive, it was Apoſtolical] but withall addes as if he had been too liberal, that the negative is a ſurer rule to judge by, (as if indeed any predication could be ſurer then that which is identical.)

7Next his argument againſt the concordant atteſtation of the primitive ancients concerning Apoſtolical tradition drawn from Papias's affirmation of the Milennium, had not, I confeſſe, formerly been produced, but it falls out that I have Qu. 1. §. 38. and in the Def. of L. Falklands Tract of Infall.elſwhere ſufficently cleared it.

p. 2948Thirdly, his citation p. 197. from the Pract. Cat. p. 181. that Chriſtmas was not univerſally ſolemnized till about 400 years after Chriſt, and after (a little more to his advantage) till at leaſt the 400 years, p. 201.] is both as to the words and as to the ſenſe very much miſreported; The place is ready to be ſeen, and lies thus. The authority by which this feſtival ſtands in the Church, is that of the practice of the Primitive univerſal Church, and this made appear 1. from the immemorial obſervation of it, 2. from the ancient Fathers ſpeaking of it as an ancient uſage (in the notion of foreign even now given) 3. by the teſtimonies not only of the author of the Conſtitutions (ancient though not Apoſtolical) but of Origen, of Cyprian, of Ammianus Marcellinus, ſpeaking of Iulian 1300 years ſince, and mentioning the Epiphany as a known feſtival of the Church, and ſo both that, and Chriſtmaſſe of a far greater antiquity, then the time of Iulian. Laſtly, by the words of Chryſoſtome, that though the particular day December 25. was not fixt at Antioch till his time, yet from Rome over all the Weſt it had been ſo obſerved from the moſt ancient records of Chriſtianity, Upon which my concluſion is, that it appears at leaſt to be an Eccleſiaſtical conſtitution very early received over all the Weſt, the far greateſt part of Chriſtendome, and within 400 years univerſally ſolemnized, and this a very competent authority, when withall tis ſo probable, that it may be more, according to a In cis quae ſcriptura nec jubet, nec prohibet, illud eſt ſequendum quod conſuetudo roboravit, quae ſine dubio de traditione manavit. Tertull. de coron. milit. & Quod univerſa tenet eccleſia, nec conciliis inſtitutum, ſed ſemper retentum eſt, non niſi poteſtate Apoſtolica traditum rectiſſimè creditur. Aug. de bapt. con. Donat. l. 4. c. 23.rule of the Fathers, That very ancient and general uſages, whoſe beginnings are unknown, may be reſolved to be of Apoſtolical inſtitution or practice &c.

9This I have thus tranſcribed from that place, to demonſtrate what fidelity there was in this citation, not only in applying that to the Feſtivall, which belonged peculiarly to that particular day Dec. 25. but alſo in affirming from me, that it was not univerſally ſolemnized till about 400. yeares and till at leaſt the 400. yeare (which leaves it free to be of a dote yet later) when I ſay tis ſo probable that it was of Apoſtolicall inſtitution or practice, that the feaſt of Epiphanie was ſpoken of, as a known feſtivall p. 295long before that time, and the feaſt of Innocents, attending this of Chriſtmas affirmed by Origen to be by the holy Fathers according to the will of God commanded to be for ever celebrated in the Church, and onelyonly added, that it appears to be at leaſt an Eccleſiaſticall inſtitution very early received over all the Weſt, and the farre greater part of Chriſtendome, and within 400. years univerſally ſolemnized.

10What can be more viſibly unjuſt then this? or what heed can be given to teſtimonies thus transformed into ſhapes, which the writer never dream'd of, and yet from them concluſions deduced ſuch as here follow in this place of the Diatribiſt, that my raſh zeale hath carried me beyond the bounds of Reaſon and Religion.

11To which expreſsion of his all that I have to ſay is, 1. That my concluſion was inferred out of premiſſes, not dictated by zeale, 2^dy. That it affix'd no cenſure on any perſon, belonging onelyonly to thoſe who ſhould be found guilty of it, and ſo was wholly deſigned to ends of charity, to reforme, not to reproach any: 3. That if there had been any thing of raſh, or bitter in it, it might have admoniſht the Diatribiſt foreign, not to be ſo ſoon guilty of greater ſharpneſs; As it is, I muſt onelyonly inferre, that it ſeemes the guilty perſon hath the priviledge of accuſing and judging in any form of language, and ſo I ſhall not be ſo unſeaſonable as to admoniſh him of the injuſtice of it, at a time when it is ſo improbable he will reap profit by it.

12There is now nothing behind but his faſtidious reflexions upon three Quaeſtions which I had return'd to the Author of the 16, Quaeres; But becauſe I ſee he likes not the Quaeſtions in my termes, and in his propoſing of foure others, inſerts particulars, wholly rejected by mee, as that of [parts of worſhip] adding [as it is propounded, §. 9.] (but I hope not by me ſo propounded) of abuſe to ſuperſtition and profaneneſs, &c. I ſhall be as little obliged to accept them in his termes or tempted by the nature of the task or by the probability of the ſucceſs of it with this Diatribiſt) to begin new deſputes at this time; It is not amiſs that we ſhake hands for a while and commune each with his own heart in ſtillneſs: And ſo I heartily take my leave of him.

The End.

ERRATA.

p. 10. in marg. read foreign. p. 48. in marg. l. 1r. Chalcidius.

p. 131. marg. li. penult. r. foreign.

End of the text · Henry Hammond, An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe (1655)