An account of Mr. Cawdry's triplex diatribe concerning superstition, wil-worship, and Christmass festivall by H. Hammond.
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.

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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Abstinences positive acts. And yet, if negative, may be acceptable. These abstinences not commanded.

[ 1] TO his 8th and 9th §§. there is little for me to reply, which hath not been cleared sufficiently already; Onely 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.

[ 2] 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, contra∣ry to the clear Christian doctrine of liberty from Judaical ob∣servances, (of which sort were those abstinences from meats) and of the honourableness of mariage among all, when the Gno∣stick detesters of mariage, making it damnable, and the absti∣nence necessary to salvation (and so in the words of the Apo∣stolick Canon, abstained and taught that abstinence〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not as an exercise, but outPage  123of detestation of marriage) brought in all the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉disho∣norable, vile affections, and practises in stead of it.

[ 3] 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, pre∣tending on one side to voluntary worship, on the other to self-de∣nial, but then had really no more of these, then of the piety which they pretended to have; If they had the least degree of pie∣ty in them (reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and rendring it quandam rationem somewhat of wisdom or piety) then that was in this re∣spect, that there was somewhat of voluntary oblation and self-denial in them; If they had not the least reality, but only a shew, (and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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.

[ 4] Yet now ex abundanti, and to gratifie the Diatribist, by throw∣ing a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Gno∣sticks) that they may very safely and fitly be comprehended un∣der 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,Page  124 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or vo∣luntary freewill-offerings, and so properly comprehended under that head.

[ 5] And the same is as visible of virginal chastity, which is no where commanded by Christ or his Apostles to any, but yet recom∣mended 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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, be∣ing 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth also professe it his judgement, that he that thus abstains from marriage doth better, even when he that mar∣rieth doth well, and consequently proposes this whole matter not as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, *it is an act of my own will, in opposition to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a precept, or command, precedent, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.

[ 6] As for the reasons produced by the Diatribist, certainly they will be of no force against this evidence; for why may not virgi∣nity, 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 commit∣tingPage  125adultery &c. And shall not the same be said of all abstinences? If Adam had not tasted the forbidden fruit, this had been but nega∣give, yet an act of obedience to God, and that preferred by God before all burnt-offerings and sacrifices, prescribed, or volunta∣ry, And then what diminution could it be to an abstinence, or pre∣judice to its being a freewill-offering, that it is a negative act? So wide is this kinde of arguing from proving any thing.

[ 7] 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 velita∣tions, 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.