An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 7
Sect. 7. Of Petitio Principii. Of foreign being capable of two rendrings. The danger from miſtake on the Diatribiſts ſide. My interpretation not ſingular. His no way probable. foreign a particle of extenuation, no foreign. No ſhew of wiſdome in reſpect of the folly that is in it. The Will-worſhip parallel to the humility. The prime argument for my interpretation. foreign for piety, vindicated from the contrary proofs. foreign. Worſhip of Angels. No agreement betwixt Col. 2. 18. and 23. or betwixt 23. and 1. Cor. 2. 4. foreign.
HIS 7th §. is the arraigning of what my 7th had ſaid concerning v. 23. foreign &c. And all that he there ſaith will loſe all force, if theſe two things may be obſerved or remembred, 1. That the oppoſers of the ceremonies of our Church, againſt whom that tract was prepared, founded their concluſion on theſe two premiſes, 1. That Will-worſhip was a ſin. 2. That the uſing of ceremonies not commanded by God, was Will-worſhip. And therefore to our vindication it was ſufficient, if upon ſurvey of that one place of Scripture where that word was uſed, it ſhould be found capable of ſuch an interpretation, which ſhould affix no ill, but contrariwiſe a good character on it; For herein the task lies on the opponent to prove his affirmative, that Will-worſhip is criminous, (and not on me to demonſtrate the negative) and that he can never do from this text, if in this text by a commodious interpretation, it be capable of a good ſenſe.
This I here premiſe, becauſe he ſo oft reminds me in this place of begging the queſtion, when I deny the word to be taken in an ill ſenſe, Of which Elench I cannot be guilty, unleſſe it were incumbent on me to prove and demonſtrate the negative, his affirmative being ſufficiently avoided, by my ſhewing that the contrary is poſſible, and not improbable, which therefore was all that was here required of me, and I hope is competently performed.
2dly That if the words be capable of ſeveral rendrings, and either of theſe will free Will-worſhip from the neceſſity of an ill ſenſe, then again this is ſufficient for my turn, for then ſtill he hath not unanſwerably aſſerted his concluſion: This I ſay, to give an account, why I ſet down two poſſible rendrings of foreign, either rationem ſapientiae vel pietatis, reality of wiſdom or piety, or elſe only Speciem ſapientiae, a ſhew, or bare appearance of wiſdom; For of this it is certain that foreign ſignifies ratio as well as Species, and much more ordinarily the former, and in caſe it ſhould here ſignifie the former, then tis unavoidably evident, that Will-worſhip muſt be taken in a good, not ill ſenſe; Mean while as I pretend not that both thoſe rendrings are true, for if it be only a ſhew of wiſdom, then it is no reality, ſo I profeſſe to yield ſo much to the authority of the ancient interpreters, as to pitch upon the latter only that of foreign, a ſhew of wiſdom, not the truth, and even then, as hath been ſhew'd, the Will-worſhip there, is capable of a good notion, for how can thoſe abſtinencies or doctrines have ſo much as a ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip and humility, if Will-worſhip hath nothing of wiſe or good, but only of wickedneſſe (and that we know is folly) in it?
Having premiſed theſe two things, it is now very eaſie to diſcover the fallaciouſneſſe of all that is brought againſt me in this or the enſuing Sections; For as to the interpretation of the verſe, which he propoſeth and preferres before mine, but without any convincing proof of the truth of it, this is on his part a begging the queſtion, which even now was charged on me, with much leſſe reaſon, and when he ſaith mine may prove a miſtake, tis ſufficient to reply, and ſo may his, and the danger farre greater from the miſtake on his ſide, then or mine, For if mine ſhould be ſuch, yet will it not follow that the Ceremonies and Feſtivals of our Church are ſuch criminous Will-worſhip, the uſing of theſe bearing no analogy with the dogmatizing of the Gnoſticks, or their reviving the aboliſht Iudaical abſtinencies among Chriſtians, whereas if his interpretation ſhould prove falſe, and mine true, his whole fabrick muſt utterly be demoliſht, and his major and minor having both failed, the one affirming Will-worſhip to be criminous, the other our uſing ceremonies and Feſtivals to be Will-worſhip, his concluſion is not likely, I hope, to hold out long after, unleſſe it ſhall pretend to that miracle which is fancied of Callimachus (and denominated him an foreign an immortal warrier, and foreign the ſtatue of Mars) who is ſuppoſed to ſtand and fight after he was dead; And then tis time to retreat from this combatant, with the Epigrammatiſt;
foreign.
But then 2dly. when he vilifies mine, reſolving it ſingular without any precedent, ancient, or modern, Proteſtant, or Papiſt, Firſt, This hath no truth in it, as will anon ſufficiently appear, At the preſent, I ſhall only reminde him, that within two years after the Treatiſe of Will-worſhip was printed, came out Grotius's poſthumous notes on the Epiſtles, and thoſe are clear for this interpretation, and ſo though they could not be my precedent then, will now ſecure me from ſingularity.
Secondly, The Diatribiſt's interpretation is ſo far from being demonſtratively true, that it hath arrived to no degree of probability: It is this, that v. 23. contains a reaſon of the danger and deſtructiveneſſe of thoſe abſtinencies, viz: becauſe they were no other, nor better then Will-worſhip with a faire pretence of wiſdom, becauſe the worſhip of God was lately placed in them, and they carry a great pretenſion of humility and ſelf-denyal in abſtaining from things pleaſing to the body.
But I demand 1. how doth it appear that this verſe contains a reaſon of the deſtructiveneſſe of thoſe abſtinences? 'Tis not ſo much as introduced with a foreign, for, or any other form of proof, but foreign, which things indeed have a ſhew, &c. which is a form of extenuation (as the Diatribiſt acknowledgeth in this §. ſpeaking of foreign) and then cannot reaſonably be a proof of the deſtructiveneſſe of them, but the conceding ſomewhat, ſpeciouſly at leaſt, in favour of them, that they have indeed a ſhew of wiſdom in them.
2dly What words are there in that verſe, which can bear, or give any pretence to that paraphraſe, that theſe abſtinences are deſtructive becauſe no better then Will-worſhip? The words in the Diatribiſts own rendring are no more but this, which things indeed have a ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip and humility; But can this bear or induce this concluſion in any mood or figure, Therefore they are deſtructive becauſe no better then Will-worſhip?
Is it not much fairer and more reaſonable, which I concluded, they have ſome ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip, therefore Will-worſhip, if it be truly ſuch, hath ſome reality of wiſdom in it? for elſe that which hath but a ſhew of wiſdom in it, cannot have that ſhew in reſpect of Will-worſhip; Adultery being it ſelf folly, 'tis abſurd to ſay of any man, or doctrine, that it hath a ſhew of wiſdom in adultery, or in reſpect of the adultery that is in it, for that were to affirm it to have a ſhew of wiſdom in no other reſpect but that it is fooliſh.
I acknowledge indeed that as it was but a ſhew of wiſdom which they had, ſo it was but a ſhew of Will-worſhip, or voluntary offering to God, and ſo a ſhew of not a true humility; but ſtill that doth but the more confirm (not confute) my concluſion, that Will-worſhip truly ſo called, and humility, that real virtue, are branches of Chriſtian wiſdom, or elſe, the having but a ſhew of them, would not give them ſo much as the ſhew of wiſdom.
3dly When the former part of his paraphraſe is [they are no other nor better then Will-worſhip] how can that be coherent which follows in the ſecond place, that they carry a great pretenſion of humility and ſelf-denial? when thoſe two are regularly joined with Will-worſhip [foreign, in Will-worſhip and humility, and not ſparing the body] Certainly as the humility is, ſuch muſt the Will-worſhip be, if the humility be only in pretenſion, then ſo muſt the Will worſhip be alſo, in pretenſion, not in truth, and then ſtill the fault or defect will be in the bare pretending, not in the Will-worſhip, as it is not in the humility or ſelf-denial, by the Diatribiſts own confeſſion, but in the falſe pretending them. How much then is it more reaſonable to do what I did, viz: to allot to Will-worſhip and humility, and ſelf-denial, to all three, the ſame ſtate, whatſoever it be, whether of virtue, if they be really what they pretend, or of hypocriſie, if they be bare images or appearances of them? And on this I inſiſt, as on the main ground of inforcing mine, and invalidating his interpretation that Will-worſhip, humility, and ſelfdenial being here placed together in the ſame claſſis or ſeries, they cannot be ſo ſeparated, as that one ſhall be a vice, when the other two are acknowledged virtues in a Chriſtian, one really what it pretends, and the other only feignedly, or in pretence, without any reality in them. When the Diatribiſt ſhall anſwer this argument, he may then tell others of miſtaking, but till then, the miſtake may much more probably be on his ſide.
Thirdly, What the Diatribiſt addes of foreign wiſdom, which I took in the ordinary notion of piety, is ſure more ſtrange in him, then what he cenſures in me; in the Proverbs and elſewhere he acknowledges it muſt ſignifie piety, but here it muſt not, but literally wiſdom, to which purpoſe he cites Biſhop Davenant, who expreſſes it to denote ſome excellent doctrine rather brought from heaven, then found out by men; But if that be the meaning of it, then ſure, as ſuch, thoſe falſe teachers taught it i. e. as coming from heaven, and that is as a doctrine of God, and that was even now denied, when I affirmed it: 2dly How can thoſe abſtinencies have a ſhew of coming down from heaven in Will-worſhip, and yet Will-worſhip ſignifie worſhip deviſed by the wit and will of man? Tis as if he ſhould ſay, they pretend to come from God, in that they come only from men; whereas in the notion of wiſdom for piety, the words run very currently and intelligibly, they pretend to have piety in them, viz: ſuch as is diſcernible in Will-worſhip or free-will-offerings, in humility, in ſelf-denial &c: Well, that foreign ſignifies piety in this place, I appeal to S. Chryſoſtom, foreign, ſaith he, by way of Paraphraſe of foreign he appears to be (though really he be not) pious, religious; And Theophylact in the ſame words.
A… for his proofs of the contrary, they are of no validity.
The firſt is from the context v. 8. where the Apoſtle calls it philoſophie; But firſt, v. 8. hath no contexture with v. 23. 2dly. foreign is not foreign, the philoſophie there ſpoken of, the joyning of the foreign or Angels with God, the Gnoſtick Theologie of the foreign, out of the Platonick and Poetick Theologie of the heathens, had not ſo much as a ſhew of any excellent doctrine brought from heaven, as the Diatribiſt even now from Biſhop Davenant expreſt foreign to ſignifie, at leaſt not ſuch as of which S. Paul could affirme that it had any image or ſhew of ſuch.
3dly. Tis confeſt on both ſides that the things here ſpoken of, and ſaid to have a ſhew of wiſdome in Will-worſhip and ſelf-denyal, are the foreign of abſtinences from meats and marriages, and thoſe abſtracted from the error of dogmatizing, have indeed a ſhew of piety in thoſe two reſpects, that he which abſtains voluntarily ſhall ſeem to practiſe a ſpecial piece of ſelf-denyal, and to offer to God a freewill offering of abſtinence from meats and mariage.
As for that of worſhipping of Angels, which I ſuppoſe a corollary of the philoſophie, v. 8. that alſo hath a ſhew of piety in humility, in worſhipping the officers and miniſters of God, as not daring to approach immediately to God himſelf; But then this, as it rather confirmes the notion of wiſdome for piety, then confutes it, ſo it cannot have any ſuch influence on the other branch of abſtinences, as to qualifie them to have any ſhew of divine doctrine in Will-worſhip and humility, eſpecially if Will-worſhip continue to ſignifie, as the Diatribiſt will have it, worſhip deviſed by the wit and will of man, for then, as was ſaid, they muſt have a ſhew of coming from heaven, in this very reſpect, that they come not from heaven, but from the wit and will of men.
His ſecond proof is, becauſe v. 18. the worſhipper of Angels is ſaid to be puft up in his fleſhly mind, i. e. in a carnal conceipt of his own wiſdome, in finding out that way of worſhip, and to that purpoſe Irenaeus is cited not as an approver of this interpretation of foreign (for in the place cited he ſpeaks not a word to that matter, not ſo much as reflects upon that text) but to … Sapientiam rnuſquiſqne eoum di cit, quam à ſemet ipſo adinvcnit. Ir. l. 3. c. 2.teſtifie, that the fictions of men are by them counted wiſdome.
But to this I anſwer, 1. That this proof extends not to the doctrines of abſtinences, which we know are the immediate antecedent, and the principal thing here ſpoken of. 2dly. That what is ſaid of the worſhippers of Angels, that they are vainly puft up in their fleſhly minds, is there ſet as an aggravation of their crime, and as the cauſe of their aſſuming to know what they underſtand not, whereas this of having a ſhew of wiſdome, being introduced with the foreign, which was by the Diatribiſt confeſt to be an extenuating particle, cannot be deſigned to aggravate their ſin, nor conſequently to be parallel to that of v. 8. And ſo indeed to have a ſhew of wiſdome in ſome reſpects, differs very much from being vainly puft in their fleſhly mind, the one placing that ſhew in ſomewhat that is really good, though falſely pretended to, the other placing it in their own carnal minds which have nothing good in them. As for the place in Irenaeus directed to in the margent, it ſpeaks quite of another matter, mentioning neither of theſe verſes, 18. or 23. and ſo cannot be vouched for an authority to prove that they are parallel one to the other.
What he addes, that it may very well be parallel to that place, 1 Cor. 2. 4, 5, 6. will be ſoon diſpatched by any reader that ſhall compare the places, for he will certainly find that there is no kind of agreeableneſs betwixt them, the one ſpeaking of the arguments, miracles &c. by which the truth of the Goſpell was conferred to men, and not by Topicks of humane perſwaſion, the other of the ſhew of wiſdome which the Gnoſticks doctrines of abſtinence had in them, which ſure are things competently removed from any poſſibility of correſponding one with the other.
But ſaith he, to aſſert thoſe abſtinences as a worſhip of God, to have ſomewhat of real wiſdome or piety in them, is a plain begging the queſtion now betwixt us] To this I have premiſed the anſwer in the beginning of this §. ſhewing how far I am from a poſſibility of begging the queſtion, whileſt I do but anſwer to the argument drawn from this text, and ſhew that it may well (I need not prove that it needs muſt) have ſome other importance then that in which alone their argument againſt Will-worſhip is founded. But then 2dly. I ſhall freely gratifie the Diatribiſt, and having mentioned that of foreign for ſome reality of wiſdome or piety, onelyonly as poſſible, I ſhall gladly yield, that it doth not ſo ſignifie here, but rather ſome ſhew of wiſdome or piety, and then I hope I do not beg but grant, give him the utmoſt in this, which he deſires, not crave any favour from one, who will no more willingly afford it.
What follows of my denying Will-worſhip to be here condemned, but not proving it, is a little ſtrange, when he knows I ſolemnly propoſe the reaſons of my contrary aſſertion §. 11. &c. which being certainly as yet not anſwered, or ſo much as taken notice of in this place, I wonder I ſhould be again ſo ſoon accuſed of petitio principii, begging the quaeſtion without proof.
As for my preſumption in mentioning, (for I did no more) the foreign for foreign, I deſire his pardon, for truely I did not expect it ſhould be ſo faſtidiouſly caſt off (the uſe of it being as fit for his rendring, foreign ſome ſhew, as for mine, foreign quandam rationem) or that the bare taking notice of it as poſſible, not preſuming it as certain, or offering it ſo much as my conjecture, ſhould ſo ſeriouſly have provoked him; As it is, the advantages are ſo ſlender which I aimed at by it, that I ſhall very contentedly lay it aſide, and no farther ſollicite his patience for it, though tis ſure enough that many more conſiderable changes have by ſober men been propoſed in explicating that Book.
As for the foreign, quidem, indeed, for which I am charged that I leave it out (though if I did, what greater fault have I committed, then St Hierome had done, who, ſaith the Diatribiſt, thinks the particle foreign is redundant? yet) I gueſſe not upon what grounds it ſhould be affirmed, when it is viſible in the beginning of §. 7. that I keep it in, and by what hath now been ſaid, that it is mine, not his intereſt to keep it in; All the appearance he can have for thus affirming is, that in propoſing that reading of foreign in two words, I ſet it down thus, foreign—but as there I leave out foreign, ſo I leave out foreign and all the reſt of the verſe, and onelyonly ſet down ſo many words as are ſufficient to expreſs what I mean by dividing foreign into two words, without any thought (if I may be believed) of leaving out foreign or ſeeking any advantage by ſo doing, or of ought elſe then what I now declare to have been deſigned by me.
But for the particle foreign adverſative, which he next conſiders, I profeſſe not to divine his meaning, there being no ſuch particle in the verſe, as far as any of my copies or my eyes can direct me.