An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 10
Sect. 10. A reply to his anſwer of my two firſt reaſons for the good ſenſe. Humility and Will-worſhip aſſociated, either both real or both pretended. Popiſh laniations why culpable. foreign 1 Tim. 4. foreign. Faſting a foreign far from hurtful or abominable, wherein the profit of it conſiſts. The true ſenſe of 1 Tim. 4. 8. wherein the ilneſſe of it conſiſts. foreign and foreign. Abſtinence becauſe of abuſes. For Religion. Marcionites. Durand. A ſhew of Piety in Will-worſhip. All ſhew of good in reſpect of ſomewhat that is good. The Diatribiſts fallacious inſtances and queſtions.
ANd my firſt reaſon being taken from the joining of Wil-worſhip with humility, one undoubted Chriſtian virtue, and not ſparing, or, as Calvin, mortifying of the body, To the former his anſwer is, that by my favour humility here is not the true and laudable Chriſtian virtue, but a meer counterfeit, a pretended humility fit for a pretended Will-worſhip.
And I reply, that if it be ſo, it fits my turn very well, for ſtill Will-worſhip and humility are aſſociated, the pretended Will-worſhip, he ſaith, with the pretended humility, and conſequently that as the fault is not in the humility, but in the pretending of it, when it is not true, the falſeneſſe and counterfeitneſſe of it, and that an evidence that the humility, if it were truly ſuch, were a Chriſtian virtue, becauſe the fault is in the feignedneſſe of it; ſo by the analogy of reaſon, it muſt hold of Will-worſhip, that when that is truly ſuch, it is a Chriſtian virtue, and that the only fault is, that it is not what it pretends to be, and ſo that is ſtill a valid argument for the good ſenſe of the word, Will-worſhip, though not of the diſguiſe and falſe appearance of it, the bare ſhew even of divine worſhip it ſelf being acknowledged to have nothing of good in it, which yet certainly the reality of it hath.
As for that of the Self-denial, it is, ſaith he, not only a counterfeit, but an impious miſtaken mortification, viz: when tis made a worſhip of God, and he inſtances in the Romiſh ridiculous Penances, Pilgrimages, &c. and asks what tis that makes them impious miſtaken mortification, not their being held forth as commands of God, for that they deny, it muſt be then, ſaith he, becauſe they make them worſhips of God, voluntary worſhip] Here again the former reply is in force, if it be the counterfeitneſſe and impiety of the mortification that defames it, then ſtill the ſelf-denial and mortification, truly ſo called, is a Chriſtian virtue, and then that will conclude the Will-worſhip to be ſo too, if it be truly what it pretends to be.
As for his inſtance, and queſtion founded on it, it anſwers it ſelf, for as it is not their holding it forth as the command of God, ſo neither is it their making it the worſhip of God, that renders it culpable, but the ridiculouſneſs of it which he mentions, the unfitneſs or inordinableneſs to that end, to which it is deſigned; ſuch laniations of our own bodies being on that account, and by their affinity to the bloody ſacrifices under the Law, deprived of all appearance of being acceptable to God, and ſo for all other ſorts, which are not either regular effects of Godly ſorrow, or deſigned as expedients to make it foreign a laſting and durable repentance (as foreign revenge, 2 Cor. 7. 11. is defined to be) For whatſoever is truly ſo, I muſt not be ſo injurious to it, as to doubt of the acceptation with God, or to cenſure it either as impious or ridiculous.
My 2d. reaſon for the taking Will-worſhip in a good ſenſe, was this, becauſe theſe abſtinences are ſaid to have foreign, whether that be ſome ſmall reality, or elſe a bareſhew of wiſdome in reſpect of the Will-worſhip diſcernible in them, neither of which they could be ſaid to have, if Will-worſhip had paſt with St Paul for fooliſh or impious, for how can a thing be ſaid to have ſo much as a ſhew of piety in reſpect to any ſin, as luſt, or rage, diſcernible in it? To this his anſwer is long and perplext, 1. By rejecting that notion of foreign for any degree of real wiſdome; And to this I that did not really adhere to that, will not be ſo far concerned in it, as to make any reply or at all to indevour to defend it, or to adde of it farther then this, that the bare poſſibility that it might ſo ſignifie, ſuperſedes all demonſtrativeneſs of proof from this text, for the criminouſneſs of Will-worſhip.
But upon this occaſion he takes liberty to conſider the Apoſtles words of bodily exerciſe, 1 Tim. 4. 8. and of that affirmes when it is ſaid to be foreign profitable for a little, the meaning is, tis profitable for nothing, nay hurtfull and abominable.
To this foreign I muſt interpoſe, that this is a very ſtrange and groundleſs interpretation of foreign profitable for a little, i. e. for nothing, and even leſs then ſo, hurtfull and abominable. It is, as if when Agrippa tells Paul foreign, a little way thou perſwadeſt me to be a Chriſtian, he ſhould interpret it, that Agrippa was not at all perſwaded by him toward Chriſtianity, but on the other ſide was more confirmed in his Gentiliſme.
To this purpoſe it is obſervable, that although the bodily exerciſe in that text be by ſome of the antients underſtood of bodily labour, yet they which do ſo, render foreign ſo, as to ſignifie ſomewhat, foreign, it profits the body a little and for a while, ſaith St Chryſoſtome and Theophylact, (and ſo we know it doth) and S. Hierome in like manner, ad breve tempus in carnali proficiunt ſanitate, they are for a ſhort time profitable in reſpect of bodily health, and ſo likewiſe thoſe others of the Antients, Ambroſe &c. who underſtand it of faſting, (ſo doth Leo alſo Serm: de jejun: 7. menſis, ſometimes in that phraſe of corporum labor, the labor of bodies, Serm: 2. ſometimes of exercitatio continentiae, quam ſibi quiſque proprio arbitrio indicit, the exerciſe of abſtinence which every one by his own choice layes on himſelf, Serm: 3.) conceive foreign to denote ſome degree of profit, utilitatem cujuſdam portionis, ſaith Leo, though not ſo great as belongs to that which is underſtood by piety in the next words.
Thus the phraſe foreign ſignifies among the Rabbins that which is in ſome degree profitable, but within certain bounds, and ſo alſo among the Greeks, as when Plato ſaith of Socrates, foreign, Socrates is a little to be conſidered, but truth a great deal, and proportionably here the compariſon lyes, bodily exerciſe is profitable for a little, but godlineſs is profitable for all things.
As for his cenſure, that by conſequence to this interpretation, he faſtens on bodily exerciſe, in this notion, taking it for abſtinences from meats and mariage, without relation to that of the Dogmatizers teaching and requiring that abſtinence as from things forbidden by God, i. e. (in effect) on bare voluntary faſting and celibacie (when they are onelyonly uſed foreign, for exerciſe, foreign not with deteſtation of mariage or meats, as the antient Canons have it) viz. that they are hurtfull and abominable [I need ſay no more, but that it is an ungrounded and unwary affirmation, no way to be juſtified or excuſed unleſs ſtill he relieve himſelf at the dead lift with the ſuppoſition, that they are made the worſhip of God.]
And then again as that cannot be applied to abſtinence from mariage, in his notion of worſhip (for even they that make that a thing acceptable to God, and a ſtate of perfection, do not count it a worſhip, unleſs in a generall ſenſe, as every virtuous act performed to God, may be ſtyled worſhip, and ſo this, being not under precept, but commended, a Will-worſhip) ſo being applied to abſtinence from meats, it can be of no very good conſequence.
For Faſting hath long been numbred among the ſorts of Chriſtian ſacrifice, and is ſo ſet down by 2a 2ae qu. 85. art. 3.Aquinas from that of St Paul of offering up our bodyes a ſacrifice to God, Rom. 12. which, ſaith he, is done by faſting, continence, martyrtome; Leo calls it continentiae libamen, the ſacrifice of abſtinence. And Ad Celantiam Ep. 14. Tom. 1. p. 31.St Hierome ſpeaking of it, uſeth this ſtyle, quicquid ſupra juſtitiam effertur Deo, making it an offering to God, though not under precept, and before him De cultu ſoem. c. 9.Tertullian, ſpeaking of abſtinence, Humilitatem animae Deo immolant, they ſacrifice to God the humility of the ſoul. And li: de Reſur: Carn: c. 8. Sacrificia Deo grata, conflictationes dico animae, jejunia, & feras & aridas eſcas, Faſting a ſacrifice acceptable to God. And yet higher, it is the expreſſe ſaying of St Luke concerning Anne, that ſhe did foreign ſerve God in faſtings and prayers, Luke 2. 37. And agreeable to this it is, that our Saviour mentions it together with prayer and almeſgiving, Mat. 6. and promiſeth it a reward, v. 18.
That the other two are ſpecies of worſhip, and the ſolemne Chriſtian ſacrifices, ſo ſtyled by the holy writers, there is no queſtion; and then why, or how ſhould Faſting which is the third, if it be qualified as it ought, be degraded from the honor, and for no other crime, but only for being taught to be what really it is, i. e. an acceptable worſhip of God, become hurtfull and abominable?
By the way, would this be affirmed by the Diatribiſt of hearing Sermons, in caſe it ſhould be taught, or aſſume to be a part of God's worſhip? would it preſently be caſt out as hurtfull and abominable? And yet ſure bare hearing of Sermons is not any acknowledged branch of worſhip.
Something, I acknowledge, of difference there is, betwixt this of Faſting and thoſe other two of Prayer and Almeſgiving, to which Chriſt annexeth it; Faſting receives the chief of its virtue and eſtimation, not from the act it ſelf, which is but a ſelfdenial, but either as an effect of piety, as flowing from godly ſorrow, and ſo joined with Affictio corporis peccatorum indulgentiam deprecatur: Hierom: in Iſa: 58. Tom: 4. p. 191. F.prayer for pardon, or as an foreign. Chryſoſt: foreign. Tom: 6. p. 476. l. 17.help or expedient toward piety, whether by ſubduing of carnal deſires, by Eò affligunt carnem ſuam, quo animae frangant ſuperbiam. Hieron: ad celantiam Ep: 14. Tom: 1 p. 39. 8.humbling the ſoul &c. or by fitting and gaining us leaſure and ability for Eodem tempore vac…mus orationi, ne interior homo noſter Draconis veſcatur carnibus. Hieron: m Iſa: 58. foreign, Chryſoſt: foreign: 15. Tom: 6. p. 573. l. 16.prayer, and for Frange panem eſurienti, partem pams quam ſi non jejunares com…ſturus eras. Jeſumum tuum non ſit lucrum marſupii, ſed ſatu…tas animae. Hieron: Ib: Tom: 4. p. 191. G. Quod veſtris uſibus religioſâ parcitate ſubtrabitis, in alimoniam pauperum, & in cibos debilium transferatis. Leo de Jejun: 7. menſ: Serm: 4.almeſgiving; and if it be the bare abſtinence from meat abſtracted from all of theſe, it is foreign, Chryſoſt: foreign. To. 6. p. 476. l. 25.no ſuch eminent or acceptable worſhip of God, Haec enim virtus adjumentum eſt, non perfectio ſanctitatis, this virtue is an hélp, not the perfection of ſanctity, ſaith Hier: Tom: 1. Ep. 14. p. 39. A.S. Hierom, ad Celantiam; But then ſtill ſuch a help it is, and that to more ends then one; For ſpeaking of Chaſtity, he addes, non huic tantummodo, ſed omnibus omninovirtutibus abſtinentia opitulatur, faſting is helpful not to that only, but generally to all virtues, And ſo S. Chryſoſtome foreign, faſting is a medicine, but that uſeleſs, if it be not uſed as it ſhould be.
So that ſtill looking on it but as ſuch, it is I hope more capable of the titles of uſeful and profitable for ſomewhat, then of hurtful and abominable; As it is an inſtrument of good a help, or medicine, ſo ſure 'tis profitable foreign, in ſome lower degree, in order to thoſe uſes; And what if by our faults, foreign, ſaith * Chryſoſtome, becauſe of the unſkilfulneſſe of thoſe that uſe it, it become foreign uſeleſs, yet ſure this is no defamation or prejudice to it; The moſt generous medicaments may thus be rendred uſeleſſe and inoperative, yet are in themſelves very apt to work cures, and ſo prayer it ſelf may become utterly unprofitable, by the like miſcarriage of ours, And more eſpecially hearing the word, which is very proper for excellent uſes, for inſtruction, admonition &c. doth yet in the event very frequently prove unprofitable, and yet this is no prejudice to the inſtitution.
By this I ſuppoſe, the exact importance of the phraſe may be collected, as bodily exerciſe is not oppoſed to, but compared with godlineſſe, and [profitable foreign, for a little] to [foreign for all things, having the promiſe of this life, &c.] viz. that ſuch exerciſes as theſe, faſting particularly, is a very good inſtrument in a pious mans handling, profitable and advantageous in its degree, in order to mortification &c. to teſtifie our ſorrow and repentance to aſſiſt in the deprecating of Gods wrath, to qualifie us for relieving of others, for ardent intenſe prayer, &c. but yet muſt not be magnified above its proportion, being compared with univerſal piety, which is profitable to all things, and hath the promiſe of this life and of another. This falls very low in that high compariſon, it is but foreign, profitable for a little, whether in extent of matter, profitable for fewer things then piety, which is profitable for all things; or in extent of time, as foreign ſometimes is rendred, foreign profitable for this time of life wherein all thoſe benefits are to be reapt, to which faſting is profitable, humiliation, mortification &c. but eſpecially in the former notion of this extent, profitable for ſome few things, in compariſon. And ſo much ex abundanti for the vindicating that text of the profitableneſſe of bodily exerciſe.
Before he leaves this, he addes that the Doctor ſeems to place the illneſſe of theſe bodily exerciſes in this, when they are taught as neceſſary, to the defaming of meat and marriage; But—I anſwer,
That I did ſo place their ilneſſe, I thought I had done it on very good authority, that of the ancient Canons, particularly of the 51 Apoſtolical, foreign &c. If any Biſhop or Clerk abſtain from marriage, fleſh, wine, not for exerciſe, (abſtinence or continence) but for deteſtation, he forgets that God created all things very good, male and female &c. and blaſphemouſly calumiates the creation, and therefore muſt either reform or be depoſed. Tis viſible here wherein that fault conſiſts, not in the abſtinence, but looking on meats and marriage as unlawful things, which they could not be, but as they are ſuppoſed to be forbidden by God, And Zonaras's comment on it is very natural, foreign, Abſtinence for the virtues ſake is to be allowed and commended. foreign, but abominating thoſe and rejecting them as hurtful to the ſoul, this is it which is criminous and cenſurable. And Balſamon addes, that as they ſhall be cenſured which abſtain from them foreign, becauſe they are cauſes of ill to thoſe that abuſe them, inſtancing in Bogomilus which did ſo; ſo he that abſtains foreign for religion or piety, foreign ſhall not be cenſured. As cautious a prevention of this Diatribiſts doctrine, and as ſeaſonable an advertiſement to him, as could have been imagined.
To theſe teſtimonies I might farther adde that of Tertullian, who affirms that among the followers of Marcion and Tatianus (though not, ſaith he, of Montanus) were ſound men qui perpotuam abſtinentiam praecipiunt ad deſtruenda & dejicienda opera creatoris, who commanded perpetual abſtinence to the deſtroying and caſting down the works of the Creator, de jejun: c. 15. And the like intimations of the opinion of hereticks we meet frequently in the Fathers, who give their cautions againſt this, Non re i…iendis generibus ciborum quaſi pollutis. Auguſt: de mor: Eccl: Cath: l. 1. c. 33. & eſcarum non naturas ſed concupiſcentias damnent. Proſper de vit: contempl. l. 2. c. 22. And many the like. And among the Papiſts no meaner perſon then Durand ſpeaks much to this ſenſe, that thoſe old hereticks did, (though the generality of the Papiſts ſeem not to approve or follow him) God, ſaith he, curſed the earth, and from thence it is that in faſting 'tis unlawful to eat any fleſh that is upon the earth, beaſts and birds, &c. Rat. divin. Off. l. 6. c. 7. But this by the way.
Next then taking the words foreign to ſignify only a ſhew of piety, he cannot but wonder at my queſtion [How abſtinences can have ſo much as a ſhew of piety in Will-worſhip, if Will-worſhip paſſe confeſtly for fooliſh and impious?] bidding me ask all inpreters, who render the words, a ſhew of wiſdom in ſuperſtition or affected religion, how this can be.
But before I ſhall ask them, I muſt have ſome aſſurance from this Diatribiſt, that all interpreters do ſo render it, for otherwiſe my queſtion will be loſt in the aire, and never bring me home any anſwer; But of this I am well enough adviſed, that all interpreters do not thus render it, I ſhall inſtance, as even now I did, in the learned Grotius, as valuable, I believe, as any that will be brought for the Diatribiſt's interpretation, and beſides, any one aſſerter of mine interpretation (and certainly Grotius is one) confutes his aſſertion of all interpreters.
However, unleſſe I can be farther aſſured, that he or they whom the Diatribiſt takes for all, doth alſo take notice of, and render ſome anſwer to my queſtion, what ſhall I gain by asking them? And if they do anſwer it, why would not the Diatribiſt be ſo kinde as to recite it from them? But this I am ſure he hath not done, by asking me again, Cannot a thing have aſh…w of wiſdom or piety, which is confeſſedly fooliſh or impious, and if ſo, may it not be ſo in reſpect of the Will-worſhip in it?
I anſwer, that if I take the queſtion in the terms wherein it is propoſed, it is no way of anſwering my queſtion, but the diverting to a very diſtant matter, For when he asks, may it not be ſo in reſpect of the Will-worſhip in it? the plain importance of his words is, may it not be fooliſh or impious in reſpect of the Will-worſhip that is in it? not, may it not have a ſhew of wiſdom or piety in reſpect of the Will-worſhip? for it is viſible that [be ſo] referres to [is fooliſh] and not to [have a ſhew] And then there is a faire fallacie put upon the Reader, the termes of my queſtion, and of the text, quite changed, and others ſubſtituted in ſtead of them, and then I confeſs that ſuppoſing Will-worſhip as ill, as the Diatribiſt would have it, a thing may be fooliſh or impious in reſpect of Will-worſhip.
But let the queſtion be fairely ſet, cannot a thing that is fooliſh and impious have a ſhew of wiſdome in reſpect of Will-worſhip? And then as I ſhall anſwer, it may: ſo I muſt adde, that then that Will-worſhip muſt be taken in a good ſenſe, for elſe that fooliſh thing could not have a ſhew of wiſdome or piety in Will-worſhip. If a fool have any ſhew of wiſdome in him, it muſt be ſure not in reſpect of his folly, but of ſome particular or other, which is by him that ſpeaks accounted wiſdome, and that he muſt have in him either in reality or in appearance, or elſe how can he have any ſhew of wiſdome? If Satan have the ſhew or appearance of an Angel of light, it muſt be in reſpect to ſomething which he doth, or pretends to do, which is Angelical.
As for the inſtances with which he proſecutes this, it muſt be a ſtrange ſhortneſs of diſcourſe, if he can think they evince his concluſion; He exemplifies in the Baalitical lancing, and the Popiſh penances, and ſuppoſing the former impious, and the latter not onelyonly ridiculous but heatheniſh, yet theſe, ſaith he, had a ſhew of piety. But what if they had, was it ever denyed or queſtioned by me, but that impious perſons or actions might have a ſhew of piety? for ſure I always knew there were hypocrites in the world, but my queſtion he knows was, how any thing can have a ſhew of piety in reſpect of that very thing which is impious? This was the onelyonly queſtion that belonged to the affair betwixt us, and certainly the Diatribiſt's inſtances are very remote from that, for the Baalites ſhew of piety conſiſted not in their bloody lancing of themſelves, nor the Papiſts in their as bloody penances, but either in the reality or appearance of that deteſtation of ſinne, and that zeal, which make them ſubmit themſelves to ſo much ſmart.
It was very neceſſary then for him in the purſuite of this, when he again recites my queſtion [But (ſaith the Doctor) can any thing be repreſented to me as having ſo much as a ſhew of piety, in reſpect of luſt or rage diſcernible in it?] to tell the Reader that this compariſon is ill laid. For if this be well laid, then ſure his ſetting of the queſtion is foully out of the way. But why is it ill laid? is it not directly a way of tryall, whether will-worſhip be ſet by the Apoſtle in an ill notion? For if it be, then ſomewhat elſe which is acknowledgedly ill (and foreign and foreign rage and luſt, the two principles of ſenſuality, were the fitteſt I could think on of this ſort, to inſtance in) being put in the ſtead of it, the Apoſtles words would ſtill continue to have truth and congruity in them, viz. that ſuch a thing hath a ſhew of piety in it, in reſpect of luſt or rage. This it ſeems was too groſs for him to ſwallow, and therefore (and upon no other reaſon, but becauſe it made the truth moſt palpable) the compariſon, ſaith he, was ill laid.
But 'tis yet more ſtrange, if we conſider his reaſon of excepting againſt this compariſon, For rage, ſaith he, and luſt are for kind confeſſedly wicked things. (And truly that was the reaſon why I inſtanced in them, to ſhew that a thing cannot have a ſhew of good in reſpect of that which is confeſtly bad, which I could not have ſhewed in thoſe inſtances, if they might have been good as well as bad) but worſhip, ſaith he, may be true or falſe. I ſhall then onelyonly ask, whether Will-worſhip may ſo too? for that, he knows, is the word we contend about.
If it may not, but is always falſe, then ſtill it is directly parallel to luſt and rage, in this, wherein the compariſon was made, thoſe always ill, and this alſo: But if Will-worſhip may be true, as well as falſe, then as I acknowledge a thing may have a ſhew of piety in reſpect of Will-worſhip, meaning the good or true Will-worſhip, and ſuppoſing S. Paul ſo to have meant, and not any falſe or impious will-worſhip, ſo by this one conceſſion of the Diatribiſt after all this contention and ſcrupuloſity and niceneſs, the whole queſtion is yielded me, for it ſeems Will-worſhip may be true as well as falſe, and ſo good as well as bad, and here not confeſtly falſe or bad, quod erat demonſtrandum.
What now follows, ſhewing that impious and falſe worſhip may have a ſhew of wiſdome and piety to natural men, is evidently impertinent to our debate or queſtion, which conſiſts onelyonly in this, whether that which hath a bare ſhew of piety or wiſdome, can have it in reſpect of that which is confeſtly impious and fooliſh; and therefore when he hath full ſcope, to put it a little more home to me, as he ſaith, and yet can do no more but ask, Whether zeal may not have a ſhew of true zeal, and yet be nothing but rage and madneſs? it is ſtill to as little purpoſe, equally beſide the queſtion; And ſo when he asks, Whether the Devil transforming himſelf into an Angel of light, muſt have ſomething really of light or piety in him, or elſe cannot have ſo much as a ſhew of piety? Tis evident he may, without having any reality of piety in him, and yet it is as evident, that if he have that ſhew of piety, in reſpect of humility or charity, or any thing elſe, that humility or charity, or whatſoever elſe, muſt be of the number of thoſe things that are accounted good and pious, for otherwiſe his having the appearance or bare ſhew of them would not conclude him to have the appearance of piety. The matter is evident enough, if he will pleaſe to open his eyes, I cannot have a ſhew of piety in Will-worſhip unleſs Will-worſhip be a branch of piety, and ſo by proportion a ſhew of Will-worſhip a ſhew of piety.
His concluſion of this copious anſwer is yet more obſervable (and according to his directions, I ſhall note it once for all) that the words are not, which things have a ſhew of wiſdome and Will-worſhip &c. for then, ſaith he, as wiſdome was good and taken in a good ſenſe, ſo might the reſt be taken, and the fault be, that they had onelyonly an appearance, not the truth or power; but the words are, they have a ſhew of wiſdome in Will-worſhip &c. and if they were faulty becauſe they had onelyonly a ſhew of wiſdome, they will be more faulty that they had but a ſhew of piety, or worſhip, or humility. All which I ſhall very eaſily grant, and as in the latter part I ſhall fully comply with him, that thoſe doctrines of abſtinences, Col. 2. were faulty, becauſe though they had a ſhew of Will-worſhip and humility, yet they had not the reality of thoſe virtues in them, ſo from the former part of his words I have all reaſon of analogie to conclude, that Will-worſhip is taken in a good ſenſe, by its being evidently joyned with humility and ſelf-denyal, for thoſe ſure are good things alſo, as well as wiſdome, and that all the fault was, that the doctrines of abſtinences had onelyonly the appearance of thoſe virtues not the truth or power of them. How inevitably this concluſion is founded on theſe very premiſes given me by the Diatribiſt, is ſo evident, that I hope I ſhall not need farther to enlarge to ſhew it. By the ſame reaſon that Will-worſhip muſt have been concluded good, if it had been joyned with wiſdome, in this forme [a ſhew of wiſdome and of Will-worſhip] it muſt certainly follow that Will-worſhip is good, becauſe it is joyned with humility in this forme, [in Will-worſhip and humility] humility being as confeſtly good, as wiſdome is ſuppoſed to be, and the fault of the abſtinential doctrines ſtill equal, that they had onelyonly the appearance, not reality of all theſe.
Once more, the utmoſt force of all is yet reſerved for the cloſe of the concluſion, The words foreign &c. ſaith he, do no more inforce us to take it in a good ſenſe then when we ſay, Judas made a ſhew of love to Chriſt in his traiterous kiſs, and the Papiſts devotion in bowing to ſtocks and images. But I deſire that he ſet the words of his example ſo, as may be exactly parallel to the words Col. 2. 23. (the leaſt change may have an influence on the matter) and then it muſt be thus, 1. Judas had (not made) a ſhew of love to Chriſt in his traiterous kiſs, and the Papiſts have a ſhew of devotion in bowing to ſtocks and images. And 2. in ſtead of triterous muſt be placed ſome word, which ſhall no more vary the kiſs, then the addition of Will varyes the worſhip, (for that the uncommandedneſs of worſhip makes it traiterous, or ſo much as ill, muſt not be ſuppoſed here, where it is the onelyonly queſtion.)
Having premiſed this, I now anſwer to the example as it is by him ſet, that as the words in the Apoſtle were certainly true, ſo theſe words, as they are now ill ſet, are as undoubtedly falſe; for conſider the kiſs, with that ſo diſtinctive contrary adjunct, as a traiterous kiſs, (which addition as it is neceſſary to make it ill, ſo it deprives it of all appearance of love) and then Judas had no ſhew of love to Chriſt in this, viz. in his traiterous kiſs. If indeed he had ſaid, Judas had a ſhew of love to Chriſt in kiſſing him, or ſaluting him friendly, then it had been true, and then the concluſion had been evident that a kiſs or friendly ſalute is an act or indication of love, an hearty kiſs of an hearty love, and a feigned kiſs of a feigned love; or if the addition of traiterous kiſs, had made no greater a change, then the addition of will or uncommandedneſs to worſhip, then again it had been true; But ſuppoſing the kiſs to be a traiterous kiſs, viz. a kiſs given as a foreign or watchword, whom (and when) the Souldiers ſhould apprehend, then ſure he had no ſhew of love to Chriſt in that kiſſe. And ſo in like manner, if the propoſition had been, The Papiſts have a ſhew of devotion in bowing, it had been true becauſe adoration or bowing is a ſpecies or indication of devotion, but becauſe Idolatry is neither of theſe, and bowing to ſtocks and images is Idolatry, there can therefore be no truth in that propoſition, ſet, as by the Diatribiſt it is ſet, and ſuppoſed to be delivered by any Orthodox pen (for ſuch ſure was the Apoſtle's to his Coloſſians) but the direct contradictory will be true and clear to all that count bowing to ſtocks and images a ſin, For to them the Papiſts have no ſhew of devotion in bowing to ſtocks or images, no ſhew of piety, but only of impiety in Idolatry.
And thus, I hope, I have at length vindicated this 2d argument for the good ſenſe of the word, from all the evaſions and foreign (and truly there have been good ſtore of them, and I believe this Section his maſterpiece of dexterity, and therefore I have ſo punctually and foreign inſiſted on it) from all the ſubtile refuges of this Diatribiſt.