An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 4 – Section 5
Sect. 4. The keeping of Eaſter in the Apoſtles times. Polycrates's Epiſtle to Victor. The Aſiatick way from Philip and John. From Philip derived to Britanny. foreign. The teſtimonie of Socrates againſt Feſtivals, examined.
AS for the truth of his negation §. 6. that the Eaſtern Chriſtians which kept their Eaſter after the Jewiſh manner, kept it not ſo in the Apoſtles times] It will deſerve conſidering a while, and the rather becauſe this of Eaſter being certainly a Chriſtian Feſtival, the annual commemoration of the reſurrection of Chriſt, and that obſerved by the Aſiaticks on any day of the week on which the quartadecima Lunae ſhould fall, and not only on the Lords day, if that ſhall be found to be ſo kept by any of the Apoſtles themſelves, this will be no ſmall prejudice to the Diatribiſts pretenſions, who will not, muſt not allow any other feſtival among Chriſtians, but that of the weekly ſabbath or Lords day, as tis by him deduced from the fourth Commandment. And accordingly in his reaſoning here againſt it, his arguments proceed not only againſt the Jewiſh manner, but againſt the feaſt it ſelf being obſerved in the Apoſtles times, as will preſently appear.
Now then for the clear trial of this negation of his, on which his cauſe ſo much dependeth, I appeal to the hiſtory of that queſtion or controverſie betwixt the Eaſtern and Weſtern Church, as it is ſet down with very little difference by Euſebius l. 5. and Nicephorus l. 4.
And firſt, tis Euſebius affirmation of it that all the Provinces of Aſia obſerved it on the fourteenth day, foreign l. 5. c. xy.foreign. as from a more ancient tradition, and again as foreign, a cuſtome long before delivered to them; which, conſidering the time wherein this queſtion was agitated at the end of the ſecond Century, can amount to little leſs then Apoſtolical.
But I need not lay weight on this, his 24 Chapter gives us the full debate of it in the Epiſtle of Polycrates to Victor.
This Polycrates was the eighth Biſhop of Epheſus, and was then 65 years old, which reacheth up very high, within 30 years of S. Johns time, and he foreign. Niceph. l. 4. c. 37.ſet down and manifeſted the tradition to be Apoſtolical, expreſſely deducing it from two of the Apoſtles, Philip one of the twelve, which, ſaith he, died at Hierapolis, and John the beloved diſciple of Chriſt, who lived and died at Epheſus, adding to theſe Polycarp Biſhop and Martyr of Smyrna, and Thraſeas Biſhop and Martyr of Eumenia, Sagaris of Laodicea, Papyrius, and Melito of Sardis, All which, ſaith he, obſerved, the fourteenth day foreign, according to the Goſpel, foreign, keeping exactly the Canon of faith, and no way varying from it.
Here it is undeniably evident, that the Aſiatick cuſtome was by Polycrates (and all the Biſhops of Aſia foreign conſented to this Epiſtle of his) fetcht from two of the twelve Apoſtles, S. Philip and S. John. And if that which See Guil. Malmeſb. de Antiq. Glaſton. Eccl. ex Freculpho l. 2. c. 4. Et Baron: Tom. 1. an. 35. num. 5. Et MS. Hiſt. Angl: in Vatican. Biblioth.our ſtories tell us of Philips being in France, and ſending Joſeph of Arimathea and others into Britain, be to be underſtood of Philip the Apoſtle, as Addit is miſſum ſuiſſe Gal…i in Britanniam à Philippo Apoſtolo Joſephum Arimathaeum. Sir H. Spelman Appar. p. 1.Gildas Albanicus expreſſely affirmes, then have we a clear account of the derivation of this cuſtome of keeping Eaſter in this Nation from Philip to our firſt Chriſtians, juſt as Polycrates in Aſia deduces it from the ſame Philip.
And that affords us an irrefragable inſtance of the obſervation of Chriſtian feſtivals among us, not only from the firſt plantation of Chriſtianity among us, but even from the practice of the very Apoſtles themſelves, which was the utmoſt that I could pretend to in this matter.
8. And it is farther obſervable, that Pope Victor of Rome, though he was willing to have proceeded with greater rigor againſt the Aſiaticks, even foreign.foreign, to cut off or excommunicate all the Provinces and Churches of Aſia, foreign, as heterodox, yet never queſtions the truth of Polycrates's affirmations, concerning his receiving the cuſtome from thoſe Apoſtles; And indeed the other Biſhops aſſembled, were not for ſuch ſeverity, but for peace, and unity, and charity with theſe fellow Chriſtians, and reprehended Victor ſeverely for his thoughts of ſeverity.
And the foreign.Epiſtle of Irenaeus to Victor is very conſiderable to this purpoſe, who though he reſolved on Victors concluſion for the keeping it on the Lords day only, yet he is abſolutely againſt excommunicating the Aſiaticks upon this very ground, that theſe Churches of God did foreign, obſerve the tradition of ancient or original cuſtome, and he farther tells him that the Biſhops before him had never broken peace with any on occaſion of this difference, inſtancing in Polycarp who came to Rome in Anicetus's time, and as Anicetus could not perſwade him to leave his cuſtome, foreign, as having obſerved it alwaies according to the practice of John the diſciple of the Lord, and the reſt of the Apoſtles with whom he had converſed, So neither could Polycarp perſwade Anicetus to leave his way, and yet they communicated one with another; Here again by Irenaeus his own confeſſion, who was for the Weſtern cuſtome, the Eaſtern was practiſed by John and the reſt of the Apoſtles (ſure more then one) with whom Polycarp had converſed.
Laſtly, There is no doubt all this while of that which the Weſtern pretended for their cuſtome, that they had it foreign by Apoſtolical tradition, ſaith Euſebius, foreign l. 5. c. foreign.following the Apoſtolical tradition upward, or from the beginning, ſaith Nicephorus, and that expreſſely l. 4. c. 36.from S. Peter the Apoſtle, which ſtill leaves the matter moſt evident and irrefragable, that this feaſt of Eaſter, which ſure is a Chriſtian feſtival (and all others are to be rated by that ſtandard) was obſerved and celebrated by the Apoſtles, and ſo is the evincing of all that I need to pretend to, for the vindicating of that Reſolution of the Quaere concerning the Feſtivals of the Church.
What now can be invented by way of reply to this argument thus inforced, I profeſs not to be able to foreſee; what he hath thought fit to offer for the proof of the contrary, I ſhall now very briefly conſider.
And 1. ſaith he, there is no mention of the inſtitution or obſervation of it in Scripture, nor any ground to found it on, But to this, 1. It is ſufficient to anſwer, that there is ſmall virtue in this argument from Scripture negative. 2dly That the Apoſtles word foreign let us keep the feaſt, which by circumſtances is applied to the feaſt of Eaſter, is ſome (be it acknowledged a leſſe weighty) ground in Scripture for the obſervation. 3dly That the mention of foreign the Lords day, Rev. 1. is ſome farther ground whether that ſignifie the weekly or annual Lords day; If it be the annual, there is then a clear evidence for the obſervation of it in the Apoſtles days; and if it ſhould be the weekly, yet in any reaſon the annual day of the reſurrection was the foundation of this weekly day, which we know is to commemorate the reſurrection, as it is evident that the weekly friday faſts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great faſt on the day of Chriſts death in the Paſchal week.
4thly If the Scripture ſhould give us no kinde of mention of this, yet ſeeing it hath otherwiſe appeared from the moſt ancient and undoubted records of the Church, that Eaſter was obſerved by the Apoſtles, by Peter and Paul in one manner, by John and Philip in another, what place of doubt or queſtion can there be in this matter?
What he addes in the cloſe of his firſt reaſon that the Apoſtles were ſo farre from inſtituting theſe as Chriſtian feaſts, that they do expreſſely repeal them and cry them down, hath not the leaſt degree of truth in it, as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4. 10.
His 2d proof is from Socrates the Hiſtorian ſaying that the Apoſtles were not ſolicitous to appoint any feſtival days at all, therefore not this of Eaſter. To this I anſwer, that Socrates's words do not at all deny this to have been the practice of the Apoſtles, only his conceit is, that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles l. 5. c. foreign.foreign commanded to obſerve this by any law, and again that they intended not foreign to make laws of feſtival days, referring the original of them to cuſtome, which varied in ſeveral regions, as appeared to him by that difference betwixt the Aſiatick and Weſtern Chriſtians, from whence his concluſion, or (as in the ſame matter he ſaith, foreign) his conjecture was, that foreign, the feaſt of Eaſter among all ſorts of people had a peculiar different obſervation from ſome cuſtome, becauſe none of the Apoſtles had made any law concerning it.
The ſhort is, Socrates ſaw that ſeveral Nations had their ſeveral cuſtomes of keeping Eaſter, ſome, ſaith he, from Iohn, others from Peter and Paul, ſetting down the very ſtory, as we have given it, out of Euſebius, and from thence he collects (how truly it matters not) that no Apoſtle had given any binding law to all Chriſtians concerning it.
And ſo I that ſpeak only of the practice Apoſtolical, and not at all of their foreign commanding it by law, am no way incommodated by this teſtimony, And for any more then ſo (practice and cuſtome Apoſtolical) it will be hard for the Diatribiſt to produce any evidence for the weekly Chriſtian ſabbath or Lords day; ſure the New Teſtament hath no where any foreign giving of law concerning it.
His 3d proof taken from the difference of the obſervation of it in the Eaſtern and Weſtern Church, which, ſaith he, makes it evident that it was not inſtituted by the Apoſtles hath ſure now been competently anſwered, for though that difference conclude againſt the foreign or appointment of the day by univerſal law, yet it no way prejudgeth the practice Apoſtolical, or the derivation of the ſeveral cuſtomes from this original.
How true, or pertinent to his purpoſe that is which followes, that the obſervation of Eaſter hath better antiquity then this of Chriſtmas, though not Apoſtolical, doth already ſufficiently appear, the Apoſtles practice for the one being ſo evident on all hands, by the confeſſion both of the Eaſtern and Weſtern Chriſtians, (the ſeveral practices being derived from ſeveral Apoſtles) that there can be no doubt in that matter; And then the analogy holding, and the argument proceeding in full force from one Chriſtian feſtival commemorative of Chriſts reſurrection, to another commemorative of his birth, or his aſcenſion, will certainly juſtifie the lawfulneſſe of the obſervation, though the antiquity ſhould not equally be pleadable for it.
And ſo I hope I have fully cleared and vindicated the concludency of this argument.
Sect. 5. Midwinter-day. The Winter Solſtice. Julius's Calendar.
NExt he proceeds to view the argument drawn from the title which our ancient records give Chriſtmaſſe day, calling it foreign Midwinter-day (and as I now finde in other Saxon monuments foreign Midwinter-maſs or feaſt) and with this he is pleaſed to refreſh himſelf and to be cheerful [How ſweetly all agree, &c.] and then to make offer of ſome anſwer; But the truth is, he hath not made any the leaſt diſcovery by thoſe anſwers, that he adverted at all to that one thing, wherein alone all the force of the argument was placed; I ſhall therefore repeat it again for him.
The Winter ſolſtice falling now many days earlier then the 25th of December, the acknowledged day of Chriſts birth, we are in reaſon to believe, that at the time when that title of Midwinter-maſſe was beſtowed on this feſtival, the Sun entred into Capricorn (i. e. the winter ſolſtice fell) if not upon, yet very neer to the 25th of December. And then this will drive it very high, up to the Apoſtles and our Saviours time, at the year of whoſe birth though as the learned exactly calculate it, the Sun entred Capricorn on the 24th of December at Rome, yet tis certain that Iulius Caeſar ordering the Calendar 43 years before that, and believing that in his time it was as Hipparchus had ſaid (viz. that the ſolſtices had anticipated 8. days, for ſo in his time Hipparchus had obſerved) he placed the ſolſtices on the eighth of the Calends, i. e. on the 24th of Iune, and 25th of December: In conſonance whereto, the difference being yet not great, the firſt Chriſtians might well call this feaſt Mid-winter maſſe, being indeed ſo neer the ſolſtice then, though the farther we deſcend from thoſe firſt times, the leſs exactneſs of truth we ſhall ſtill finde in that appellation.
Now to this Mr. C. is not pleaſed to make the leaſt word of reply, and ſo hath not qualified himſelf to expect any ſyllable of return from me to his 7th §. Only I ſhall tell him for his utmoſt ſatisfaction, 1. That my argument no way depends on the falling of Iohn Baptiſts, day on Mid-ſummer day, and only mentioned it to ſhew the agreement betwixt them. 2. That if Chriſtmas day were not celebrated till the end of the 2d Century, it could not with any propriety be called Mid-winter maſſe, for An. 200. the Winter ſolſtice was certainly at a pretty diſtance from the 25. of December. 3. That though now Mid-winter day be a fortnight ſooner then the 25. of December, yet in the Apoſtles times it was not ſo, and ſo that is an argument for, not againſt the obſervation of it in, or neer the times of the Apoſtles, for elſe it could not with any truth be called Midwinter day.
By this time I hope the Diatribiſts eyes may be opened to diſcerne ſome force in this argument, and how nothing he hath replied to it.