An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 11
Sect. 11. The Greek Fathers acception of foreign. An argument of goodneſs that 'tis pretended by hypocrates. Religion in a good ſenſe. Will-worſhip not worſe then falſe worſhip, not abominable. All deviſed worſhip is not Idolatry, doth not pretend to more wiſdom then Gods. The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Tranſlator, and the followers thereof. foreign by the vulgar rendred decernitis. The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the good ſenſe. The teſtimonies out of Ambroſe, Theodoret, Salmeron, Eſtius, Auguſtine, Thomas, examined.
MY third reaſon being taken from the Greek fathers underſtanding of the place, who though they interpret foreign only of appearance, yet paraphraſe Will-worſhip by words of good ſavour, foreign pious, religious &c. The Diatribiſt begins with a triumph and ovation, Firſt, ſaith he, this is well that the Greek Fathers agree with us in expoſition of the firſt words, a ſhew (not, as he, ſomewhat real) of wiſdom, nay they expreſſely oppoſe againſt it power and truth, and can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worſhip of God, be taken in a good ſenſe? And do not the Fathers imply as much, Chryſoſt: foreign, &c. foreign, he ſeems to be religious, but is not ſo, Oecumenius foreign, pretending religion in worſhip. And is there any goodneſſe in hypocriſie?
Here truly it is not to be reprehended but cheriſhed in the Diatribiſt, that he is ſo very much rejoyced to hear the newes, that the Greek Fathers and he are of a minde, in any the leaſt particular, I hope it will incourage and ingage him to a more familiar converſation with them, and then I am perſwaded no body will have reaſon to repent of it.
All that I am to complain of at the preſent, is firſt that their interpreting foreign a ſhew, ſhould be deemed an agreement with him, more then with me, who he knowes have produced them, and never expreſt any diſlike to that interpretation. All the difference between us being but this, that the Greek foreign being capable of two rendrings, rationem and ſpeciem, I that deſired to proceed on ſure grounds, propoſed them both, and, which ſoever ſhould be adhered to, ſhewed the neceſſity of foreign being taken in a good ſenſe. Tis true indeed, if foreign ſhould be there taken for ratio, the argument for the good ſenſe would proceed moſt irreſiſtibly, But ſuppoſing it with the Fathers to ſignifie ſpecies, a bare ſhew or appearance, yet the argument holds very firmly thus alſo, the Gnoſtick doctrines cannot have ſo much as a ſhew of piety in Will-worſhip, unleſſe Will-worſhip real be piety real, and the appearance of Will-worſhip a foundation of an appearance of piety. And this being the ſenſe of the Fathers, which rendred foreign a bare ſhew, this ſure was fit to be confronted to the Diatribiſt's pretenſions, as a third argument.
And is it not now a ſtrange way of anſwer to this argument, to ask, as he here doth, Can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worſhip of God, be taken in a good ſenſe? I reply, by demanding what it is, of which the Fathers ſay, that it hath neither power nor truth? Sure the doctrines of abſtinence, and not the Will-worſhip; And yet his anſwer proceeds as if they ſuppoſed it of the Will-worſhip, and without that, hath no appearance of force in it. And is not this a ſtrange perverting of plain words? Chryſoſtome ſaith, the falſe teacher ſeems to be pious, but is not, and Oecumenius, that he ſimulates piety, and from hence Mr. C. concludes that Will-worſhip is not taken in a good ſenſe. But I pray is not piety taken in a good ſenſe, even when the hypocrite ſimulates piety? Nay, would he pretend to it if it were not good? Doth a hypocrite pretend to that which is acknowledgedly ill? This were ſure to appear what he is, and that is contrary to his being an hypocrite. The product is plain, Will-worſhip is rendred by piety, not by appearance of piety, & unleſs piety it ſelf can be taken there in an ill ſenſe, Will-worſhip muſt be taken in a good ſenſe, Certainly I need adde no more ('tis pity I ſhould be required to ſay ſo much) of this matter.
But on occaſion of the interpreter of Clemens, who renders foreign, in religione, from whence I thought I might conclude it that mans ſenſe, that Will-worſhip ſignifies religion, and ſo that it was not taken in an ill ſenſe, he is pleaſed to ask, [Why, Is not religion it ſelf of various ſenſes? The ſimple word ſignifies falſe religion, as well as true; but the compoſition makes it worſe, and alters the ſenſe, becauſe it addes the work of mans will to worſhip, which is abominable to God]
What depth there is in this queſtion will ſoon appear; For 1. What if both religio and foreign be of various ſenſes, and ſignifie falſe religion as well as true, heathen, or Judaical, as well as Chriſtian? Is there any appearance of reaſon to determine it to the former, in this place, or in that interpreters acception of it? If there be, then there is an account of the words being taken in an ill ſenſe, without any influence of the foreign, mans will upon it; if there be not (as he is obliged to affirm there is not, ſaying p. 69 that the Apoſtle brands them as deſtructive, becauſe they are but Will-worſhip, not becauſe they are outdated or Judaical, much leſſe then, becauſe they are any more dangerous ſort of falſe worſhip, ſuch as was uſed among the heathens) then what matters it, what in other places it ſignifie, whenſoever the adjuncts or context ſo determine it, unleſſe it do (or can be pretended to do) ſo here?
This being premiſed, that which follows is yet more ſtrange, that (foreign ſignifying falſe religion as well as true) the compoſition makes it worſe; worſe then what? then falſe religion? This is fairly to reſolve that the uſe of any thing uncommanded in the ſervice of the true God, is worſe then falſe religion indefinitely, i. e. then Idolatry or Superſtition; and the reaſon annext is of the ſame temper, [adding the work of mans will is abominable to God.]
Here indeed is a foundation of charge of Idolatry, or whatever is moſt abominable on this poor Church of ours, for the bare uſing of any moſt innnocent ceremony. But this all the while incumbent on the Diatribiſt to prove, and as it will not be granted for asking, ſo it is not ſo neerly approaching toward truth, as to want any farther anſwer, then the reciting of it, I cannot yet be ſo uncharitable to Mr. C. as to imagine it his ſerious opinion that kneeling in prayer or thanksgiving to God, on purpoſe to expreſſe our lowly reverence to him, or bowing at the name of Jeſus, in token that we believe him to be the eternal God, in oppoſition to the ancient or modern Arians and Socinians, is abominable to God, and worſe then falſe religion.
And though his following queſtion confirms this to be his opinion [Do not all Idolaters pretend wiſdom in their inventions, citing in the margent Pſal: 106. 39. went a whoring with their own inventions] yet tis not to be believed, that he can in earneſt thence conclude, Therefore all inventions of men are Idolatry, and worſe then Idolatry; If he can, 'tis ſufficient to reply, that though all Idolatry be invented and deviſed worſhip, yet all inventions of men are not Idolatry, though every beaſt be a living creature, yet every living creature is not a beaſt; And ſo that though Idolatrous Will-worſhip be abominable to God, yet all Will-worſhip is not Idolatrous.
Once more he preſſeth this argument, Doth not, ſaith he, this pretence (of wiſdom) make it more odious to God, as taking upon them to be wiſer then he, and more devout then he requires?] But it may ſuffice once for all, that he that uſeth an uncommanded ceremony in the ſervice of God, doth not take upon him to be wiſer then God, but walking regularly in obedience to the divine rule, whereſoever there is any particularly given, acts according to reaſon and the more univerſal rules of Decency, &c. where God hath not particularly preſcribed any thing. And ſo again in acts of uncommanded devotion; doing that voluntarily out of love to God which God requires not ſub periculo animae, and ſo which is not extorted by fear, either of offending or ſuffering, this is again no elevating our own wiſdome above Gods, but our making uſe of thoſe advantages and thoſe liberties which God in his wiſdome choſe to afford us, that there might be ſomewhat for us freely to exerciſe his graces upon, and ſo for him as freely to reward in us. And of this there is no fear, that it ſhall ever be counted any irregular acting, and having God's promiſe to be rewarded, it is ſafe from being odious or abominable before him.
Thus I hope I have vindicated the good ſenſe of the word as farre as in my 3d. Reaſon I pretended from the Greek Fathers concurrence with me.
As for the Latines and later interpreters, to which the Diatribiſt now calls me, and asks me why I did not tell him, how they rendred the word? To this I anſwer, that as I have not commodity to examine all thoſe interpreters in this matter, ſo I did not think my ſelf obliged to do it, having never pretended that the notion which I give is univerſally received by all Expoſitors, I acknowledge, that all men have not rendred the word in a good ſenſe, particularly that the vulgar Latine reads it Superſtitio (though in what acception of that word I know not, moſt probably in an ill ſenſe) but ſure this with no more truth or analogie for ſo interpreting, then is for their interpreting the Paſſive foreign by decernitis, v. 20. which is no leſs then to change ſubjection into command, undergoing a yoke, into impoſing of it, one contrary into another.
However from thence tis nothing ſtrange that the ill ſenſe ſhould be transfuſed into thoſe Expoſitors which follow and never depart from that Latine tranſlation, neither examining the original word, nor the context, to reforme that tranſlation by it. This was the task which I then undertook, and having found the context to incline it to a good ſenſe, and the Greek word to bear it very well, and the Greek Fathers to concur with me in their notion of it, I thought I might lawfully queſtion the authority of the vulgar Latine, and thoſe who had been lead by it, (and ſo we know are the Papiſts, and from them others alſo, who do not take notice who tis that leads them) and attempt that here which I ſaw ordinarily practiſed by all other ſorts of men, the Learned Papiſts themſelves (and, I doubt not, by this Diatribiſt, when he conceives himſelf to have reaſon for it) i. e. depart from their words and conduct, as in other ſo in this particular.
In ſo doing I now ſee without any ſearch, that I have ſuch a concurrence as will ſecure it from any cenſure of ſingularity. Beſide the Greek Fathers forementioned, the p. 69.Diatribiſt tells me I have Bellarmine's conſent (adding ſome other Papiſts alſo) and I hope his authority alone were conſiderable enough, if there were not alſo ſome others, to weigh in the balance with Salmeron and Eſtius, which are all the modern Expoſitors here cited by him.
And among the Proteſtants, to Hugo Grotius, already cited, I now adde Monſieur Daillé in his late tract de Jejuniis, written ex inſtituto againſt Bellarmine, and yet in this place of St Paul l. 1. c. 7.conteſted between them, he expreſſely acknowledges with Bellarmine the very thing that I concluded, viz. that thoſe falſe teachers had a threefold colour of wiſdome, 1. In Will-worſhip, 2. In humility, 3. In auſterity to the body, for which three things they admire theſe their doctrines of men; defining foreign cultum ſponte & voluntariè aſſumtum nulla cogente Dei lege, a worſhip undertaken voluntarily and of their own accord without any law of God conſtraining them, and again that by the whole diſcourſe of the Apoſtle it appeares that they commended and ſet off their doctrines of abſtinence by this, that voluntarily ex quadam zeli & ſanctificationis abundantiâ ſuſciperentur, they were voluntarily undertaken out of an abundance of zeal and holineſs. And ſo in his opinion if abundance of zeal and holineſs were taken in a good ſenſe, Will-worſhip muſt be reſolved to be ſo taken.
And ſo this Expoſition of that learned man, who will not be deemed partial to me againſt the Diatribiſt, may now deſerve to be conſidered by him, as ſoon as the contrary of any modern Expoſitor produced, or, I believe, producible by him.
For as to thoſe antient Latine Fathers, whom he hath already produced, they are but three, Ambroſe, Hierom, and the vulgar Latine, and thoſe three may be reduced alſo, and in fine will amount to little more then the one ſingle vulgar Tranſlator. This is generally ſuppoſed to be St Hierome (and if it be not, tis certainly ſomebody whom St Hierome followed, St Hieromes ſhort notes on the Epiſtles being affixt to that tranſlation) and ſo St Hieromes name is no addition to that, onelyonly ſerved the Diatribiſts turn, as in a falſe muſter, to bear two names to appear twice, and fill two ſpaces in his catalogue.
And for the onelyonly Father now remaining, St Ambroſe, if thoſe Comments be his, which go under his name, they will bring no great prejudice to our pretenſions, for by paraphraſing [foreign] by ſimulatione religionis, all that can be concluded is, that thoſe doctrines of abſtinence had not any reality, but onelyonly a falſe guiſe of religion in them, and ſo it follows there, Hinc ſe ſapientiae rationem habere putant, quia traditioni humanae nomen religionis applicant, & religio appellatur cum ſit ſacrilegium, Hence they think themſelves to have ſome appearance of wiſdome, becauſe they apply the name of religion to humane tradition, and it is called religion, when it is ſacrilege; And this I may caſily grant, and conſequently that the Will-worſhip here, and ſo likewiſe the humility, were not either of them truely ſuch, and ſo offended in this, that they were not what they pretended to be, and would not have been criminous, if they had been really ſuch; which ſtill devolves all the fault on the doctrines and on the hypocriſie, not on the Will-worſhip, or Religion, whoſe name would never have been pretended to by hypocrites, if it had not been good. See §. 7. of this ch. n. 10.
Mean while I gueſs not how Theodoret which is acknowledged to be a Greek Father, came to be ranked among the Latines, and a Latine interpretation of foreign cited out of him; However I never pretended, that all either Greek or Latine, or particularly that he concurred with me in this ſenſe, & therefore am not obliged to give any farther account of his interpretation, OnelyOnly this I am ſure of, that tis not the uncommandedneſs of the worſhips, that he finds fault with, but 1. Their teaching thoſe for Gods commands, which are their own; (That is the meaning of foreign, their introducing their own ordinances, foreign, their unſeaſonable Judaical doctrine) and 2dly. Their bare ſhew of piety and humility, without the truth of either (foreign) whereas by by his concluſion, it is moſt evident, that the abſtinences without the doctrines would not have been deemed by him reproveable, and ſo not the bare uncommandedneſs of the worſhip, for thus we have it in the cloſe, foreign, For abſtinences ought to be by counſell, not as from deteſtable, but as from the moſt delectable things. Which is the very thing, which all this while we have endevoured to conclude from that place.
After theſe his Latine Fathers, he haſtens to later interpreters, and thoſe are two, Salmeron and Eſtius, and thoſe two are one again, the one taking from the other as the manner is, without any conſiderable difference. But to give his Teſtimonies their full weight, we will view them diſtinctly.
Salmeron begins with obſerving, that whereas the Vulgar Latine reads, in Superſtitione and humilitate, & non ad parcendum corpori, the Greek hath onelyonly three, words, foreign, which three, ſaith he, ſunt tres colores oſtendentes rationem & ſpecimen ſapientiae, are three colours ſhewing a ſpecimen (which by the way is more then ſpeciem, or bare ſhew, ſome real evidence) of that wiſdome (to which thoſe doctrines of abſtinences pretended) And the firſt of theſe, ſaith he, ſignifies cultum ſpontaneum, ſive voluntariam religionem, a ſpontaneous worſhip, or voluntary religion pro arbitrio cujuſvis abſtinendi a cibis, of abſteining from meats as every man ſhall think fit, and afterwards, illâ voce alludit ad voluntarias oblationes legis quae nedaboth dicuntur, Deut. 16. & Amos 5. By this word he alludes to the voluntary oblations of the Law, which are called foreign And then I ſhall deſire the Diatribiſt to conſider, how fitly Salmeron was called out to give teſtimony againſt me, (he, and one more, in the name of all later interpreters) when it is evident from theſe words, that he ſaith the very ſame thing, which all this while I contend for, if I could have thought fit to have defended my ſelf from ſingularity, by his Teſtimony.
Tis true indeed he conceives the words to allude to v. 18. volens in humilitate & religione, and ſo goes along with Eſtius, and others in that miſtake, which I had taken notice of in them, and that might have eaſily led him into farther miſtake, if the evidence of the truth, or ſome other better guide had not rectified him; But as it is, I have no reaſon to complain of him, as to the word foreign which is now before us.
Somewhat more he addes of the word foreign which ſignifying, ſaith he, the virtue of humility, is here uſed for a feigned humility, which is contrary to the Goſpel, becauſe by it the Judaizers Evangelio legem admiſcebant, mixt the law with the Goſpel, And as this is alſo perfectly concordant to my notions, ſo to this it is, that he brings the teſtimonies of Auguſtine and Thomas, and not for the notion of foreign, as the Diatribiſt cites them out of Eſtius.
However to manifeſt my care of profiting by all his animadverſions, I ſhall view thoſe teſtimonies alſo. The one thing which Salmeron cites from both of them, is this that omnis ritus colendi Deum qui à Deo non eſt, nec à Spiritu ſancto per Eccleſiam traditus, ſed voluntate hominum inventus, ſuperſtitioſus eſt, every rite of worſhipping God, that is not delivered from God, nor from the holy Ghoſt by the Church, but is invented by the will of man, is ſuperſtitious. Where it ſeems, that which is delivered by the Church, being by him ſuppoſed to be from the holy Ghoſt, doth in no degree fall under this cenſure, And then the Diatribiſt hath free leave to make his beſt advantage of this citation.
As for Eſtius his main endeavour in the interpretation of the verſe, is to evince that foreign ſignifies ſpeciem in genere, ſive veram ſive falſam, a ſpecies in general, whether true or falſe, which is very little for the Diatribiſts advantage, for granting it to ſignifie ſpecies, if that ſhould prove a true one, then that is perfectly deſtructive to his intereſts, for ſuch a ſpecies of wiſdom nothing could have in Will-worſhip, if Will-worſhip were ſuppoſed to be impious and fooliſh; And if it ſhould prove a falſe ſpecies, and ſo a bare ſhew of wiſdom, yet is that very reconcileable with the good notion of Will-worſhip as hath oft been ſhew'd.
What followes in him, is, ſaith he, ſecundum Auguſtinum & Thomam, according to Auguſtine and Thomas, that theſe abſtinences have rationem ſapientiae non verae, ſed ejus quae ſita eſt in ſuperſtitione & humilitate, quae falſa eſt ſapientia, not true wiſdom, but that which is placed in ſuperſtition and humility, which is falſe wiſdome. But where Auguſtine or Thomas give him authority to pretend their accord with him, he cites not. In all reaſon this defect muſt be ſupplied by Salmeron, who cited in the margent, Auguſt: lib. de verâ rel: & lib. 2. de doctr. Chriſt. c. 25. and Thomas 2a. 2ae qu. 93. art. 1.
What place in Auguſtines book de vera relig. it is, to which he referres, we have no direction, and ſo are left to gueſſe, that it is cap. 55. Non ſit nobis religio in phantaſmatibus noſtris, Melius eſt enim qualecum que verum quàm omne quicquid pro arbitrio fingi poteſt, Let not our religion be placed in our fantaſmes, for any thing which is true is better then whatſoever can be feigned at our own pleaſure. And as to the truth of this poſition I give full conſent, that all fictitious falſe worſhip is to be avoided, not only (as he contents himſelf to ſay) unfit to compare with true, ſo I no where undertake to be advocate for any falſe or fictitious, or fantaſtick religion. The commemorating the birth of Chriſt on the 25th of December, I hope, is not ſuch, nor any Ceremony admitted into uſe in our Church.
The other place out of the 2d de doctr. Chriſt. c. 55. ſtands thus; Having at the 20th Chapter defined Superſtitioſum ſuperſtitious, to be whatſoever was inſtituted by men, for the making or worſhipping of Idols, and that either belonging to the worſhipping any Creature, or part of a Creature as God, or to conſulting or making any pacts with Devils &c. and having fallen on the ſeveral ſorts of divinations c. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. he begins his 25th ch. quibus ampu…atis at que eradicatis ab animo Chriſtiano, deinceps videndae ſunt inſtitutiones hominum non ſuperſtitioſae, i. e. non cum daemonibus, ſed cum ipſis hominibus inſtitutae, the former being lopt off, and eradicated from a Chriſtians minde, let us farther view ſuch inſtitutions of men as are not ſuperſtitious, i. e. are not made with Devils but with men themſelves, And having added ſomewhat of ſuch vain inſtitutions (which ſure no way concern the matter now in hand) he comes to thoſe which are uſeful to humane ſociety, and reſolves that ſuch are not to be avoided by a Chriſtian, imò etiam, quantum ſatis eſt, intuenda, memoriaeque retinenda, but in a competent manner to be obſerved and retained, and this how little it belongs to the preſent purpoſe, to the proving foreign to be here uſed in an ill ſenſe, is already ſo apparent, that I need adde no word more to the clearing of it.
As for the place of Aquinas 2a. 2ae. qu. 93. art. 1. It is the very ſame, which long ago, we conſidered in the former part of this Tract, ch. 3. §. 3. n. 5. and to the view of it, there preſented, I refer the reader, finding nothing more in that whole place art. 1. which was not there punctually conſidered, unleſſe it be a citation out of the Gloſſe Col. 2. quòd ſuperſtitio eſt, quando traditioni humanae religionis nomen applicatur, that it is ſuperſtition when the name of religion is applied to the tradition of men, which words have nothing in them, which I am not ready to acknowledge, being ſufficiently aſſured, that dogmatizing is a ſin, and conſequently that ſo good a name as religion ought not to be pretended for, or applied to it.
What he addes by way of anſwer to my fourth reaſon, hath, I think, nothing of moment in it, but what hath oft been ſpoken to already, unleſſe it be that he ſaith, he hath not obſerved any ſuch difficulty or obſcurity in that text Col: 2. 20. &c. but dares ſay, the Doctors expoſition makes the greateſt obſcurity that ever he met with: But of this there is no diſputing, I muſt not expect that he ſhall acknowledge my interpretation to be clear, when he diſlikes it, or diſcern the involutions or difficulties of that other which he hath eſpouſed, when, if he did, he were obliged to forſake it.