Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45394
|
An account of Mr. Cawdry's triplex diatribe concerning superstition, wil-worship, and Christmass festivall by H. Hammond.
|
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.
|
1655
(1655)
|
Wing H511; ESTC R28057
|
253,252
|
314
|
is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that doth any thing from his own not anothers will or command whereas the word to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary in performing commands is by him set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so those two words must be read together and not severed as they now are in the vulgar copie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as immediately after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again of the two words formerly cited by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former certainly signifies the freeness of the matter not of the person one that is willingly deaf or disobedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sure cannot be phansied a doing that freely or willingly which is commanded for no man is commanded to be disobedient and in like manner the latter is rendred by Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is made such by himself and not commanded by the city adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 setting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary to commanded by another and Phavorinus repeats the very same words onely with the change of the Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding also as seldome he omits to do what Hesychyus had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same may appear again by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that chooseth ill voluntarily i. e. he which of his own accord chooseth the evil both in Phavorinus and Suidas where sure that which he chooseth voluntarily is not first commanded by God being supposed to be evill And so still these compositions from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie all of them in perfect accord with my notion of Will-worship i. e. a performance voluntarily taken up without any command of God And indeed t is a little strange that this Diatribist who takes it here in an ill sense and places the ill in this that it is an uncommanded worship should yet here dispute against this signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for voluntary worship uncommanded by God and phansie that I pretend no more but the free-willingness of the person in a commanded worship of God What he addes in the end of that 15th § that though the word in other authors be taken for voluntary worship and be but once used in Scripture yet the Spirit of God useth words in a sense clearly different from other authors instancing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 4. taken for a vice which in Aristotle is taken for a virtue will soon receive answer For 1. Hesychius being the author now peculiarly under consideration and his Glosses having a speciall propriety to the explicating of words in Scripture what is said by him is not so much the sense of other authors as of the Scripture itself and so cannot reasonably be thought distant from it 2dly Though some words are taken in the Scripture in a sense different from other authors this is not applicable to all words of Scripture some are used in ordinary vulgar senses and by much the greater part of words there and from thence to conclude of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is taken in a different sense is to conclude and syllogize from particulars which is against all Laws of Logick 3dly Whensoever a word in any place of Scripture is affirmed to be used in such a different sense that must be concluded either by the circumstances of the text which so inforce it or else by comparing it with other places of Scripture where that sense is necessary as when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is concluded to be a vice Eph. 5. 4. t is manifest by the context it must do so for to it is immediately annext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are not onely not convenient but as that phrase denotes very inconvenient nay as the companions of it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inforce filthy noisome unsavory so as folly oft signifies uncleanness and so this is a visible reason also why the word is taken in an ill sense when Aristotle meaning onely cleanly not beastly jesting takes it in a good sense But of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this no way appears in this one place where t is used but on the contrary the society in which t is found humility and self-denyal or austerity determine it to be the good sense as certainly as the companie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determine that to an ill And so much for my 5 t Reason Sect. 13. Mr. C. his distinction of voluntary Spontaneous A work of love The Testimony of Socrates Worship true or false Nothing unlawfull which is not forbidden Voluntaryness no way forbidden The second Commandment TO my last reason because things done in the service of God are not therefore ill because spontaneous but on the contrary that when out of a pious affection a man shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is so much more commendable and acceptable to God he thinks it sufficient to distinguish of voluntary either as it denotes the manner or the efficient cause of worship in the first respect that is voluntary saith he which yet is necessary viz. commanded by God in the second that onely which is done by the will of man contradistinguisht to the will of God But this distinction is very far from answering my reason For of the second it is he knowes that I understand the word and that I might prevent all want of this or the like distinction I speak most plainly using the word Spontaneous not voluntary on purpose to denote that which was done by mans will on his own accord without any command of Gods for so sure Spontaneous signifies however the Diatribist here confounds it with voluntary and so involves in stead of extricating mixes when he went to distinguish that which is suâ sponte from a mans own incitation not from any external impellent whether command or punishment attending it for this indeed being done thus freely is perfectly a work of love and that renders it so extremely greatefull and rewardable by God I shall give you the description of it in the words of Socrates speaking of Ecclesiastical rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing no man can shew any written command for this it is manifest that the Apostles left this to every mans judgement and will that every man might do good neither by fear nor of necessity When he addes that in worship devised by man the will bears all the blame and then the more voluntary the more abominable I answer that worship is either false or true bad or good Heathen or Christian His rule is perfectly true in unlawful wicked worship all the blame thereof lyes on the will of man but it can have no place where the worship is lawfull for then no blame is due at all but the more
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that composition And if hereby I have gratified the Diatribist and yeelded the Dogmatizer a Superstitious person I wonder why this might not have been taken notice of in my behalf and so saved him the pains of affixing this position on me that excess in religion is not well called Superstition which 't is visible and by himself now confest that in this sense I affirme it to be see that 46. § of Superstition Mean-while the Drs. hypothesis is still secure for this no way belongs to the bare using in the private man or the Magistrates prescribing Ceremonies in the worship of God neither of them doing it upon pretense of Divine precept The very same reply belongs exactly to my last concession vouched by him that to place more virtue in things then God or nature hath put in them is granted to be an excess because it addes to the promises of Christ and called Superstition by me § 45. For this is another particular which I allow to be an excess and when it is not meer folly fit to be comprehended under the style of Superstition for this farther reason besides those which I there mentioned because such beliefs as these are mostly borrowed from the heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are remainders of their practices as St. Augustine Ep 73. speaks of the ligatures Execranda superstitio ligaturarum in quibus inaures c. non ad placendum hominibus sed ad serviendum daemonibus adhibentur the accursed superstition of ligatures among which are the ear-rings c. used not for the pleasing of men but to serve devills This testimonie the Reader may subjoyn if he please to the Supellex already prepared for him in this kind § 26. of superst and discern how far I have been from denying what I am accused here to deny and yet as far from yeelding him any foundation of concluding that the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church are in the least degree guilty of Superstition And so much for his second discovery of causes of my phansied not real mistakes Sect. 5. The innocence of Wil-worship Analogie with voluntarie oblations under the law Seeming Contradiction The authority of Chrysostome and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment Reducing all sinnes to the Decalogue Addition to the rule Worship of Angels Other sinnes beside that of Dogmatizing THe 3d. part of his discovery of causes belongs peculiarly to that of Will-worship thus The third saith he is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Will-worship is nothing but voluntarie worship as innocent as the freewill offerings c. which proposition of mine I must suppose made up of these two parts 1 that Wil-worship is nothing else but voluntarie worship 2 that being so t is innocent and as innocent as freewill offerings And in which part of these one or both the mistake lyes I am not told but both together indistinctly are proposed as my 3d. fundamental miscarriage And then as to the first I cannot begin without some remarke that it should be possible to be lookt upon by this Diatribist as a paradox or mistake or miscarriage in any man and such as is meet to be noted as the most fruitfull mother of many more that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Will-worship should be affirmed to be nothing else but voluntarie worship Where I have no farther appeal to make then either to the ears of all men of common understanding or to the Glossaries and Interpreters of words For is there any the nicest difference imaginable betwixt Wil-worship and voluntary worship save that in the latter voluntary is of a latter origination from voluntas voluntarius but will though perhaps from the Latin originally is yet more antiently infranchised among us of England I shall make short work of this if it be taken for any part of the mistake by desiring one favour from Mr. C. viz. that he will translate either the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the English Wil-worship into Latine for me will it not surely be voluntarius cultus and is not that being turn'd again into English voluntary Worship What can be more evident then this But it may be hoped that this was not my mistake but what follows viz. that this voluntary worship is as innocent as the freewill offering But it is not possible that should be the mistake neither for freewill offerings under the Law were certainly one species of voluntary worship and so known by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary and therefore those being innocent t is certain that all the other fellow species of voluntary worship bearing proportion with these and having no circumstance to defame them which the other had not must needs be innocent also That thus it is and this is the notion of the word in the onely place where it is used in the New Testament Col. 2. hath allready been largely vindicated in the Tract of Wil-worship which the Reader is requested to resort to and the Annotation on Col. 2. where many more evidences are added to it which make it superfluous to adde yet more in this place Onely I must secure it from the Diatribist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or objections And the first is by way of velitation that it seems a contradiction in adjecto that voluntary worship and uncommanded should be innocent There is no end of disputing about appearances That may seem to Mr. C. which doth not to other men and Ammonius tells me this is very ordinarily observable in this very matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many propositions seem indeed to be contradictory but yet are not such But I shall ask Is it what it seems or is it not If it be not why was this mentioned by one who can distinguish betwixt true and false colour and varnish reality and appearance If it be I desire to be instructed what Logician hath so defined contradiction as wil any way accord to this expression The onely definition or description of contradiction in adjecto that ever I heard of is when that which is added is contradictory to that which was first set and contradictions we know are affirmations and negations of the same thing in the same respect either formally which the interpreters of Aristotle call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diagonial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fighting one with another in direct forme of contradiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enunciation every man to the negation not every man or interpretatively i. e. by certain consequence or implication as if I should say Socrates is not a man here were a contradiction in adjecto because in the subject of the proposition he that had the appellation of Socrates was supposed to be a man and yet in the praedicate that is denyed of him But certainly here is no such thing either formally or by implication in this proposition Voluntary or uncommanded worship is innocent Of forbidden worship this were true for innocence to be attributed to