An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 14
Sect. 14. The firſt occaſion of miſtaking foreign for ill. The vulgar tranſlator and Mr. Calvin. The Diatribiſts three exceptions to this ſhewed to be of no force. Will-worſhip diſtant from Superſtition. foreign only in a good ſenſe among Chriſtians. Three miſtakes of the Diatribiſt. All uncommanded is not forbidden.
HIS next poſt or Stage is made up of an examination of thoſe things to which I conceived the miſtake and abuſe of foreign imputable. The firſt of which I aſſigned to be the vulgar tranſlations rendring it Superſtitio, that being moſt probably S. Hieroms, and his words being found agreeable to it in ſome places, and from thence Mr. Calvin hath affirmed it, Superſtitio Graecis dicitur foreign.
That this was fit to be inſiſted on as a firſt occaſion of the miſtake, will be evident enough to any, who conſiders how ordinary it is for the Romaniſts on one ſide without farther inquiry or conſideration to follow the vulgar tranſlation, and for the reformed on the other to follow the ſteps of Mr. Calvin, and not alwaies to examine his grounds of affirming, which certainly were very farre from ſolid in this matter, it being evident to all that know any thing of words, that foreign is the Greek for Superſtition, and not foreign, nay that foreign being but once uſed in Scripture, and not found in any author, but ſuch as may be reſolved to have uſed it from thence, Mr. Calvins words, that Superſtitio is called by the Greeks foreign, cannot probably ſignifie any more then that the Greek word in that one place is by the vulgar tranſlator rendred Superſtitio. And then this is an evidence of that which there I affirmed, that the occaſion of taking foreign in in an ill ſenſe (which I muſt be allowed to deem a miſtake) is the vulgar tranſlators rendring it Superſtitio.
Now to this, three things are here objected, though not to the main of the obſervation (for no word is replied to that) yet to the mention of the Greek words foreign &c. Firſt that a man may ſay as much for foreign it ſelf as the Doctor ſaith for foreign, and bring the Doctor for his voucher who ſaith that foreign ſometimes is taken in a good ſenſe.
But I reply 1. that the Doctor never ſaith that foreign is taken in a good ſenſe among Chriſtians, who ſure never allowed the worſhip of Daemons, but only among heathens, who do allow it. 2. That if it were ſometimes taken in good ſenſe, yet that were not ſufficient to conclude that it were all one with foreign, all good things are not the ſame, no nor all ill, and therefore in whatſoever ſenſe the words are taken, whether both in good or both in ill, the one in good, the other in ill ſenſe, yet ſtill the nature and importance of the words is diſtant, & ſo ought not to have been confounded either by the vulgar tranſlator or by Mr. Calvin, and being ſo unduly confounded, the Diatribiſt cannot from thence raiſe any more ſolid argument for the ill ſenſe of the one, then I can (which I pretend not to do) for the good ſenſe of the other.
2dly He objects, that foreign, as the Doctor knowes, is taken alſo ſometimes in an ill ſenſe, as well as a good, why then, ſaith he, may they not both equally ſignifie ſuperſtition? eſpecially when applied to falſe or men-deviſed worſhip. I anſwer, that foreign when ſpoken of Chriſtians is never taken in an ill ſenſe, unleſſe by virtue of ſome Epithet joined with it, which it ſelf is ill, as foreign in S. James, vain religion, and then alſo tis the vanity which hath the ill ſenſe, not the religion. And again that vain or ill religion, is not ſuperſtition neither, but an unagreeableneſſe of the Profeſſors practice to his religion. Now he knows it is of Chriſtians that now we ſpeak, and ſo there could be no place for this exception, nor for any thing to be founded in it, nor plea from hence that either the ſimple or the compound ſhould be rendred ſuperſtition; As for the men deviſed worſhip that that ſhould be ſynonymous with falſe, that is the old artifice of begging the queſtion, in ſtead of ſaying ought for the gaining of it.
His laſt exception is, that Superſtition or Will-worſhip is more general then foreign, that's but one ſpecies of ſuperſtition, if taken (as the word imports) for Daemonum cultus. But all falſe worſhip is ſuperſtition, and the rather becauſe it is ſpontaneous, voluntary, i. e. Will-deviſed worſhip.] Here is a fair proportion of miſtakes, without any tender of proof for any, no leſſe then three in theſe ſo few words.
Firſt, he begins with a preſumption that Superſtition and Will-worſhip are all one, and that he knowes is now the one thing denied by him, with whom he is diſputing, and he cannot be ignorant, how illogical an argument that is, we have oft minded him of that fallacy.
Secondly, he affirms that either of theſe is more general then foreign, whereas 1. Superſtitio being ſuperſtitum cultus, is directly all one with foreign which is daemonum cultus, the Superſtites and foreign being the ſame in ſeveral languages, and the other notion of Superſtition (that in Aquinas for prohibited or illegitime worſhip) that is but a branch of the former, ariſing by analogy with it, and is not any oppoſite Species to it; and for Will-worſhip, if that be more general then foreign, that very thing will prove it 1. not to be all one with foreign, a ſubſtance, which is the more general, is not all one with a body, which is a Species of ſubſtance; The truth is that the generical Will-worſhip, as that comprehends all worſhip uncommanded by God, hath ſeveral Species under it, Jewiſh out-dated, and ſo now uncommanded worſhip, heatheniſh forbidden, and ſo uncommanded worſhip, and finally Chriſtian acceptable, yet not commanded acts, or circumſtances, or degrees of worſhip; And as the genus is not all one with any one Species, ſo Will-worſhip in general is not any one of theſe, but all of them together. And 2. It implies the word to be capable of a good as well as of an ill ſenſe, and ſo indeed it is, being taken in a latitude, Will-worſhip, or as he will ſtyle it, men deviſed or Will deviſed worſhip, may be of two ſorts, (as the generical word Worſhip, may) either true, or falſe, heathen or Chriſtian, and as the one is ill, ſo the other is certainly good.
But then what is that to the Will-worſhip in this text, which is not the generical, as that is common to good and bad, but that which is in the Diatribiſts underſtanding a wicked and falſe, and in mine a good and a Chriſtian Will-worſhip, and which ſoever of the two it is, it is certainly not both, and ſo ſtill but a Species of the generical Will-worſhip, and ſo not the genus it ſelf.
Laſtly, when he ſaith, all falſe worſhip is ſuperſtitious, and the rather becauſe it is ſpontaneous, this is a ſtrange involution again; For the whole truth of that propoſition [All falſe worſhip is Superſtition] conſiſting in this, that all worſhip of falſe gods, or forbidden worſhip of the true God, is wont to be compriſed under that name, the former according to the literal ſenſe of the word Superſtitum cultus, the latter as reducible, or by analogy agreeable to that, it is very unreaſonable to ſuperſtruct upon this, that that falſe worſhip is the rather ſuperſtitious becauſe it is ſpontaneous, It being certain, that if it offend not ſome other way then by being ſpontaneous, i. e. if it be not in reſpect of the matter of it, falſe worſhip and ſo forbidden, it is not ſuperſtition at all, and if it be falſe worſhip, in it ſelf forbidden, then ſure it is more then ſpontaneous, for ſo muſt all be that is actually forbidden. So that there is not the leaſt degree of appearance of truth in that laſt affirmation.
That which is indeed falſe worſhip is more then ſpontaneous (the uncommandedneſſe of it is precedent and inferior in order of nature, to its being forbidden, and its being forbidden is an addition to its not being commanded) the falſeneſs conſiſts in its being deviſed by mans will, not ſimply, but in oppoſition to Gods, i. e. when tis forbidden, and it would not otherwiſe be falſe worſhip, if it were not forbidden either directly or by analogy with ſomewhat which is directly forbidden, and what is forbidden is more then not commanded, and ſo more then ſpontaneous, and ſo the ill of it cannot be increaſed by being ſpontaneous, and ſo it is not the rather ſuperſtition (or any other kind of evil) for being ſpontaneous.
On the other ſide, that worſhip which is ſuppoſed not to be forbidden, is conſequently thereto, to be reſolved not to be falſe, and if it be not falſe, it cannot be Superſtition (for ſuch onelyonly is falſe worſhip) and if ſo, then again the voluntarineſs or Spontaneity of it cannot make it more falſe or more Superſtition, then before it was, becauſe it was neither falſe nor Superſtition before, and the bare uncommandedneſs cannot render it either, Gods not commanding implying his permiſſion, and ſo a liberty allowed by God, and that is ſo far from being all one with prohibited, that it is in effect the very contradictory to it, this being permitted by God, whereas all that is prohibited is not permitted. And ſo here is a competent number of infirmities in very few words.
And yet there is ſtill one behind, the great impertinency of this, and of the two former anſwers to the point in hand, the occaſions, to which it is imputable that Will-worſhip came to be taken among many in an ill ſenſe, which without queſtion (at leaſt without any word of exception from this Diatribiſts three branches of this 18th §.) is the vulgars rendring foreign Superſtitio, and Mr. Calvin's following the vulgar.