An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 7 – Section 3
Sect. 7. The grounds why this Feaſt may not be aboliſht among us. The Diatribiſts miſtake of the queſtion.
MY 2d inference now followes, that any ſuch ancient uſage of this particular Church, if it had no other ground to ſtand on (as its foundation) or concurrence of all Chriſtian Churches (as pillars) to ſuſtain it, were a very competent authority for the preſent continuance of ſuch a practice in the Church, and that upon this ſcore, becauſe the Anglicane Church being one of thoſe which by its foundation is foreign ſubject to no forein Patriarch, is conſequently inveſted with unqueſtionable power to inſtitute Ceremonies for it ſelf, which conſequently may not without great temerity be changed or aboliſhed by any.
To this, becauſe I ſee there are ſome pages of objections inſerted by the Diatribiſt, before I read them over, I deſire it may be adverted, wherein the force of my inference conſiſts, viz. in theſe 3 things, 1. that this particular Church of ours being firſt planted by ſome either Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon was thereby conſtituted foreign of abſolute power within it ſelf, as that excludes ſubjection to any other forain power.
2dly That in all probability this feaſt was ſet up, or celebrated here, by thoſe that firſt planted the faith among us, i. e. by ſome Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon, by Simon Zelotes or by thoſe 12 which were ſent higher by Philip the Apoſtle, and Ioſeph of Arimathea one of thoſe.
3 That what was by ſo good authority introduced, having no equal reaſon to ſuperſede it (ſuch as was the contrary tradition of other Apoſtles in the buſineſſe of Eaſter) may not without temerity now be aboliſhed by any; not by any other perſon or perſons, Pope, or Conſiſtory, becauſe no other hath power over a Church which is foreign founded by the Apoſtles, and not ſubjected by them to any; not by the Church it ſelf, which cannot now be ſuppoſed to have any ſuch perſons in it, as may be fit to compare with the firſt founders of it, at leaſt, not without ſome greater reaſon for the changing and aboliſhing, then they may appear to have had for the uſing of it.
Upon theſe grounds my inference being built, as is there apparent by the premiſſes, and the very expreſſions cautiouſly uſed in ſetting it down, let us now ſee what the Diatribiſt hath to object; And 1. that it is foreign by its foundation, he willingly grants, ſubordinate to no forain Patriarch, I ſhall only demand whether it be ſubordinate to its own ſons, or to any but the legal Fathers of it? I hope it will be as reaſonable for me to preſume it is not, as it was for the Diatribiſt to grant the former, for elſe M. C. a ſon of this Church by deveſting the Pope of his authority, ſhall only have removed and veſted it in himſelf, and ſuch as he, tranſlated it from the Papacy to the Presbyterie, which I hope he will not profeſſe to do, leſt that be the very crime which was charged on our Biſhops, that they aſſumed to themſelves the Papal power, or the power of ordaining ceremonies, which ſure is no greater then that of aboliſhing them.
Having made this grant of the foreign of this Church, it is obſervable what he preſently interpoſeth, Yet, ſaith he, we juſtly queſtion whether it be inveſted with ſuch unqueſtionable power to inſtitute what ceremonies it pleaſe, which may not upon good reaſons be changed and aboliſhed In which very form of propoſing his queſtion or exception, tis viſible what change he hath thought fit to make in my inference, when I ſpake of the power of this Church to inſtitute ceremonies for it ſelf, I never affirmed of thoſe ceremonies once inſtituted that they might not upon good reaſons be changed and aboliſhed, for I doubt not but the ſame power which may on good reaſons inſtitute, may on good reaſons aboliſh alſo; But firſt I deſired to examine the preſent reaſons of abolition of this Feſtival, whether they were as important as thoſe whereon this Feſtival was ſuppoſed to be inſtituted, viz. that of the pious and thankful commemorating the birth of Chriſt; and withall 2. whether thoſe reaſons pretended for abolition, were not faigned reaſons, as thoſe taken from the heads of Will-worſhip, and Superſtition, have, I muſt hope, been evidenced to be: or again 3. whether they might not otherwiſe be ſatisfied, as that of the riot (charged only as a conſequence accidental to the Feaſt) by care and exerciſe of diſcipline.
To which conſiderations may 4thly be farther added this reaſonable aphoriſme of Chriſtian policy, that what was thus brought in on ſuch grounds by the governors of a Church, ſuppoſing them but ſuch as are of an ordinary rank of governors, and not the Apoſtolical founders of the Church (to whom certainly more reſpect is due) may not be caſt out by ſons of the Church, or indeed by any other then the authority of the ſucceeding Governors.
And theſe few conſiderations I ſuppoſe, may competently evidence the unreaſonableneſſe of this changing the tearms of the queſtion, if not of his plea for the abolition of the Feſtival.
And therefore whereas, upon this occaſion, he enters into a large diſcourſe concerning the power of the Church to inſtitute ceremonies, I ſhall take leave to paſſe it over untoucht, it being certain that the two branches of the one propoſition, for which I contend, are no way concerned in any part of his ſtate of this queſtion, nor indeed any thing with the leaſt probability ſuggeſted againſt either, viz. 1. that a National Church planted by the Apoſtles or their ſucceſſors may lawfully uſe a feſtival for the commemorating the birth of Chriſt, and on it pray to, and praiſe God in the ſolemn aſſembly, preach out the word and Sacraments, exhorting all good Chriſtians to partake thereof and to lay aſide their ordinary labours, that they may be vacant for ſuch holy exerciſes; and 2. that when ſuch a pious uſage hath gained a reception, either from the time of the firſt planting of the faith among us, or however by immemorial cuſtome (all other Churches in the world for very many hundred years, and for ought we can diſcern, from the very Apoſtles practice, concurring with us) it ought not to be declaimed againſt, as Antichriſtian, or laid aſide, or covenanted againſt by this Diatribiſt or others, perſons not in but under authority, upon no weight of ſolid reſons, but upon ſome cauſleſs ſuggeſtions, that it is criminous, under the head of Will-worſhip and Superſtition.
This was ſo plainly ſet down before, to be the whole matter in debate betwixt me and any gain-ſayers, that there was nothing left to the Diatribiſt, but briefly to point at the weak part, if there appeared to be any ſuch in either branch of this propoſition, and having nothing from him to this purpoſe, I ſhall now omit to take notice of the infirmities of which this diſcourſe of his is as full as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected, and haſten to his following §§. in hope of ſpringing ſomewhat more pertinent to our controverſie.
Sect. 9. The Reformation in this Kingdome. No imperfection in it in point of Feſtivals. The ſtates joyning in it no diſadvantage to the Church.
MY 10th §. proceeded to ſome few conſiderations, the adverting to which might render this change or abolition of the Chriſtmas Feſtival more unreaſonable; As 1. that this obſervation was an undoubted part of that eſtabliſhment which the Reformation in this kingdome enacted for us, and that by act of Parliament, and not only by Church Canon.
To this he anſwers two things, 1. That the Reformation was not ſo full as the Reformers themſelves could have wiſht; Never conſidering how far this is from being applicable to the point in hand, For I ſhall demand, Did all or any of the Reformers, to whoſe piety and temper we ow our eſtabliſhment, ever expreſſe their wiſh that all Feſtivals, particularly this of Chriſtmaſſe ſhould be aboliſhed? or did they not? If it ſhall be ſaid, they did, I then preſſe that the Record may be produced, by which this hath been notified to the Diatribiſt; But if he confeſſe they did not, or offer no proof, that they did, then what is it to this matter of feſtivities, wherein only our preſent debate is concerned, if in other things of a quite different nature, as that of bringing all notorious ſinners to penance every Lent, mentioned in the office for Aſhwedneſday, they wiſht, and expreſt their wiſh, that the Reformation were more perfect? The rule in law is ſeaſonable to be here applied, Exceptio firmat in non exceptis, Their expreſſing their wiſh that other things might be more perfect, gives us aſſurance, that they wiſht not any farther change in this particular of feſtivals, then that which they made in the Romiſh Calendar.
This anſwer therefore had little of advantage for him, and yet his only Reſerve is, that 2. this ſeems to grant that the Reformation was made by the State and not by the Church, which now is pleaded for.
And I pray what is that to the diſadvantage of the Church that the State joined with it in the Reformation, confirming and eſtabliſhing it by Act of Parliament; or 2. why is that the fitter to be aboliſhed which ſtands by Statute law, as well as by Eccleſiaſtical Canon, and Cuſtome immemorial; or 3. how doth the Parliaments confirming the Liturgie, and therein the feſtivals, inferre that this feſtival was not firſt introduced by the Church, when it is moſt evident that the Feſtival was in the Church long before that Act of Parliament?
Theſe indeed are all the anſwers we can have to an argument, which ſeemed to have been of ſome force with a friend of Parliaments or eſtabliſhed lawes: and therefore we muſt content our ſelves with them.
Sect. 3. The Lutheran Churches accord in this. Morney's wiſh. The Helvetian confeſſion. Rivets cuſtome of preaching on the day.
MY 2d conſideration was, that this and other feaſts of Chriſt are retained in the reformed Lutheran Churches, and where they are taken away, wiſht for by ſober members, as Ph: Mornay Du Pleſſis, and approved by the confeſſions of thoſe Churches as the Helvetian, and in other places the day of Chriſtmas afforded the ſolemnity of a Sermon.
To this he anſwers, that the Lutheran are not reputed the beſt reformed Churches, nor by the Doctor, he believes, thought fit to be compared with England, and ſo not fit precedents for our Reformation.
But ſure he might have marked that the Lutheran Churches concurring with the Engliſh in this of Feſtivals tis no way to the diſparaging of my argument, that I do not compare the Lutheran Churches with that of England; Tis certainly ſufficient if they and the Church of England together may be able to compare with all other reformed Churches which have caſt out all feſtivals as ſuperſtitious or Antichriſtian; And thus I ſhall, without much inſolence, adventure to make the compariſon.
As for the little regard he is pleaſed to give to ſuch private perſons wiſhes, as that of Ph: Morney Du Pleſſis, I may reaſonably reply, that how faſtidiouſly ſoever he reject it, it may very well be allowed to keep the practice of the Church of France from being any example or precedent to us, when the prime members of their own Church have expreſt their diſlikes of it.
And I pray why was not the Helvetian confeſſion worth his taking notice of? that was no bare wiſh of a private man, but the approbation of a Church, which Mr. Calvin thought fit to write to for their judgement and ſuffrage to his new erected model at Geneva.
As for the paſſage of giving Sermons to Chriſtmas day, I ſee it is miſtaken by him, and applied to, as ſpoken of himſelf and ſuch as he in their former practices, and upon that miſpriſion it is, that he is ſo much concerned to have their prayers as good and as large as the Liturgies, (by the way, if they be not much better, and ſure alwayes to be ſo, why muſt the Liturgie be aboliſhed?) whereas all this while I never thought of him, or ſuch as he, which it ſeems, kept fair with Chriſtmas (from whence I am in charity to believe they thought it not Superſtition) till they had an advantage of ejecting it, and then made all ſpeed to cloſe with the opportunity, but of ſome other preachers in other Churches, where this Feſtival was not obſerved, ſuch as Andrew Rivet in the Low Countreys, who, as I have been informed, conſtantly preacht on that day to his auditors, which was a civility fit to be mentioned to thoſe that will now perform that office on any day of the week, rather then on that.