An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 8 – Section 9
Sect. 8. The abſtinences how taught by the Gnoſticks. Their pretenſes for them, no realities. Abſtinences may be freewill offerings, and ſelf-denyals. Such may Faſting duely qualified. Such may virginal Chaſtity. Pauls judgement of it. Chryſoſtome of things foreign. Abſtinences poſitive acts. And yet, if negative, may be acceptable. Theſe abſtinences not commanded.
TO his 8th and 9th §§. there is little for me to reply, which hath not been cleared ſufficiently already; OnelyOnly in the end of the 9th he ſaith there is a great miſtake in comprehending theſe abſtinences under freewill offerings; for, ſaith he, both the freewill offerings were ſomething poſitive, and theſe abſtinences were negative, rather not offering then offering, touch not, taſte not &c. and all theſe abſtinences were commanded by ſpeciall Laws, but freewill offerings, the Doctor ſaith, were not required of them by obligation of particular Law.
Of this my ſuppoſed miſtake, I muſt give ſome account, thus, The abſtinences here ſpoken of I ſuppoſe to be of two ſorts, from meats, and from marriage, both which were now perfectly lawfull to be freely uſed ſine diſcrimine, by Chriſtians; Thoſe therefore that taught them to lie now under interdict, were dogmatizers and falſe teachers; This therefore was a great fault in them, contrary to the clear Chriſtian doctrine of liberty from Judaical obſervances, (of which ſort were thoſe abſtinences from meats) and of the honourableneſs of mariage among all, when the Gnoſtick deteſters of mariage, making it damnable, and the abſtinence neceſſary to ſalvation (and ſo in the words of the Apoſtolick Canon, abſtained and taught that abſtinence foreign, not as an exerciſe, but out of deteſtation of marriage) brought in all the foreign diſhonorable, vile affections, and practiſes in ſtead of it.
This double error being noted and cenſured by the Apoſtle, he yet ſhewes the pretenſes, whereby it was recommended by the falſe teachers, to thoſe ſeducible perſons corrupted by them, viz: that theſe abſtinencies were acts of voluntary worſhip and ſelf-denial, and ſo could not fail to be acceptable to God. That they were truly ſuch, I never imagined, but that they pretended to be ſuch, had ſome ſhew at leaſt of piety in theſe two reſpects, pretending on one ſide to voluntary worſhip, on the other to ſelf-denial, but then had really no more of theſe, then of the piety which they pretended to have; If they had the leaſt degree of piety in them (reading foreign, and rendring it quandam rationem ſomewhat of wiſdom or piety) then that was in this reſpect, that there was ſomewhat of voluntary oblation and ſelf-denial in them; If they had not the leaſt reality, but only a ſhew, (and foreign ſome ſhew agrees as commodiouſly to that) then ſtill that ſhew was in theſe two reſpects, that they had alſo a ſhew of Will-worſhip or voluntary oblation, and of ſelf-denial. And ſo ſtill I am free enough from any neceſſity of acknowledging his charge of comprehending abſtinencies under freewill-offerings, when I only affirm that they were recommended by falſe teachers under thoſe ſpecious colors.
Yet now ex abundanti, and to gratifie the Diatribiſt, by throwing a foreign before him, I ſhall not doubt to affirm, that ſuch the abſtinencies may be, and ſo they may be recommended by the Orthodox Church (which is far enough from theſe foul Gnoſticks) that they may very ſafely and fitly be comprehended under the head either of freewill-offerings or Self-denials. Of the latter there can be no doubt, for faſting and virginal chaſtity are certainly acts of Self-denial, denying our ſelves the enjoyment of thoſe ſatisfactions, which might moſt lawfully be enjoyed: And if to this of Self-denial be farther added the deſigning of this to the honor or ſervice of God, faſting in order to Chriſtian ends, either as an outward effect and expreſſion of Godly ſorrow, or as an inſtrument of bringing the body into ſubjection, fitting my ſelf for more leiſure and ardor in prayer, acting revenge upon my ſelf for the intemperancies of the former life, and, as to the very Self-denial, looking on it as that which will be acceptable to God, though not (to every poſſible act) commanded, ſub periculo animae, and as ſuch dedicating it to God, this ſure will be a foreign or voluntary freewill-offerings, and ſo properly comprehended under that head.
And the ſame is as viſible of virginal chaſtity, which is no where commanded by Chriſt or his Apoſtles to any, but yet recommended to them which are able to bear it, he that can receive it, let him receive it, and the advantages of it, under the title of foreign profitable, 1 Cor: 7. 35. ſet out by S. Paul in order to the advancing of ſome Chriſtian ends, purity of body and Spirit, caring for, or minding more intently the things of the Lord, being without ſolicitude, in times of diſtreſſe, when the cares of the world may very much incumber all, and probably inſnare many; Upon which grounds the Apoſtle, that out of his fatherly care would have them aſpire to the greateſt perfection, and ſo wiſhes them this foreign, doth alſo profeſſe it his judgement, that he that thus abſtains from marriage doth better, even when he that marrieth doth well, and conſequently propoſes this whole matter not as foreign any command of Chriſts, for he profeſſeth to have no ſuch, but as his opinion or judgement v. 25. and 40. which what is it but the very notion of freewill-offering, ſuch as of which S. Chryſoſtome ſaith, foreign, Tom. 3. p. 382.it is an act of my own will, in oppoſition to the foreign, a precept, or command, precedent, or foreign, Thoſe things which are done above the precept, have in this reſpect great reward, but thoſe which are in the rank of precept, not ſo much.
As for the reaſons produced by the Diatribiſt, certainly they will be of no force againſt this evidence; for why may not virginity, or faſting deſerve to be accounted poſitive things? is it not as truly a poſitive action to conquer as to ſatisfie, to ſubdue as to glut my appetite? and if ſelf-denials be negative things, and yet acceptable to Chriſt, what prejudice will it be to theſe abſtinencies, though they ſhould be deemed negative alſo? Are not all the obediences that are performed to negative precepts, compliances with thoſe negations, and ſo negative alſo, as not killing, not committing adultery &c. And ſhall not the ſame be ſaid of all abſtinences? If Adam had not taſted the forbidden fruit, this had been but negagive, yet an act of obedience to God, and that preferred by God before all burnt-offerings and ſacrifices, preſcribed, or voluntary, And then what diminution could it be to an abſtinence, or prejudice to its being a freewill-offering, that it is a negative act? So wide is this kinde of arguing from proving any thing.
And as wide is his ſecond proof, that theſe abſtinencies were commanded by ſpecial lawes, when he knows that abſtinence from marriage was never commanded by any law of Moſes, or Chriſt, and that that other from meats was now left free by Chriſt, thoſe ſpecial laws under Moſes given to the Jewes being now caſſate and cancelled by Chriſt. This ſure is enough to his preſent velitations, what he hath of reſerve for a weightier impreſſion, ſhall then be warded when I ſee it approach, and therefore ſo much for theſe two Sections.
Sect. 9. Compliance with Papiſts. The Diatribiſts inconſtancy.
HIS 10th §. being an introduction to his ſurvey of my ſix reaſons for the taking Will-worſhip Col: 2. in a good creditable ſenſe, begins with a general, but that poſing, confounding note, that taking the word in a good ſenſe, the Doctor complies too much with the Papiſts (moſt of them taking it in an ill) who uſe to take off the force of the Proteſtants objection from this place againſt their Will-worſhip, by anſwering, that it is taken here in a good ſenſe, for voluntary religion or worſhip] To which I confeſſe my ſelf unable to give any anſwer, as not gueſſing wherein the objection lies, whether in my complying, or not complying with the Papiſts.
The words expreſſely tell me, that taking it in a good ſenſe I comply with the Papiſts, and yet there are other words as expreſſely pronouncing, that moſt of the Papiſts take it in an ill ſenſe: The only expedient to me imaginable to reconcile theſe contradictions (which yet I have no pretence of imputing to the Printer, or to any but the Author) is this, that though moſt of the Papiſts take it in an ill ſenſe yet ſome though ſmaller number of them take it in a good, and ſo defend their many traditions of worſhip (as he calls them) and anſwer the Proteſtants objections (the Diatribiſts and his partners) from that text, Col: 2. and then that I differ from thoſe Proteſtants, and comply with thoſe Papiſts.
And if this be the meaning, then as 1. I can truly ſay, that I borrowed not this interpretation of that word or text from any Popiſh writer, but from the weighing the text it ſelf, and the characters I found in it (the ſame that Hugo Grotius hath diſcerned alſo, as was ſaid) and accordingly ſet thoſe down for the reaſons of my interpretation; ſo if I ſhall truly be found to have complied with any Papiſt herein, yet 1. I ſhall never ſtartle at the interpretation, upon that account, many Papiſts having given the true ſenſes of many places of Scripture; and 2. I ſhall with much more juſtice be able to retort this argument on the Diatribiſt if I may believe himſelf, the ſenſe which he hath given, viz: the ill ſenſe, being owned by moſt of the Papiſts, as he here himſelf confeſſes. And then ſure he that is acknowledged to comply with moſt of the Papiſts, and not he which is but accuſed to comply with ſome few of them, muſt needs be moſt guilty of that crime, whatſoever 'tis fancied to be, which conſiſts in ſuch compliance.
Nay 'tis not long ſince he affirmed of my interpretation of this verſe, that he believes it is ſingular without any precedent, either Diatr. p. 44.ancient or modern, Proteſtant or Papiſt, and then I have little reaſon to believe his bare general ſuggeſtion againſt his own belief, that the Doctor herein complies with the Papiſts, eſpecially when out of Chamier, he here addes that that learned and acute man, Panſtrat: l. 3. c. 6. §. 5. profeſſes he never ſaw the good ſenſe in any interpreter of the place.
So then this general note is not likely to tend much to our prejudice, I proceed then to his more particular anſwer to my reaſons.