A68877:32
Gods husbandry
Gods husbandry: the first part. Tending to show the difference betwixt the hypocrite and the true-hearted Christian. As it was delivered in certain sermons, and is now published by William Whately, preacher of the Word of God in Banbury in OxfordshireGods husbandry: the first part. Tending to shew the difference betwixt the hypocrite and the true-hearted Christian. As it was deliuered in certaine sermons, and is now published by William Whately, preacher of the Word of God in Banbury in Oxfordsheire
London: printed by Bernard Alsop and Felix Kyngston for Thomas Man, 1622
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
First then, for the describing of an hypocrite,1 we must make use of a necessary rule of Logic, which bids us to define the concrete by the abstract as they term it, as no man can possibly declare what a white thing is, but by conceiving and expressing what is whiteness; nor what a proud man is but by understanding what pride is; nor what an hypocrite is, but by knowing what is hypocrisy. And again we must understand, that virtues and vices do not denominate their subjects, unless they be in them in so high a degree, as to prevail and be predominant over their contraries: as nothing is called white, but that in which whiteness so prevaileth, that it partaketh more of white, than of any other colour: and if a thing do so partake of whiteness, we call it white, though it fail much of the whitest whiteness that may be. So is he called a proud man, in whom pride prevaileth; an infidel, whom infidelity ruleth; a revengeful man, in whom revenge doth bear sway; and a covetous man, in whom covetousness reigneth. And so must we ⟨p. 14⟩likewise conclude in the present matter, that he is an hypocrite, in whom hypocrisy prevaileth and beareth rule.
First then, for the describing of an hypocrite,1 we must make vse of a necessary rule of Logicke, which bids vs to define the concrete by the abstract as they terme it, as no man can possibly declare what a white thing is, but by conceiuing and expressing what is whitenesse; nor what a prowd man is but by vnderstanding what pride is; nor what an hypocrite is, but by knowing what is hypocrisie. And againe we must vnderstand, that vertues and vices do not denominate their subiects, vnlesse they be in them in so high a degree, as to preuaile and be predominant ouer their contraries: as nothing is called white, but that in which whitenesse so preuaileth, that it partaketh more of white, than of any other colour: and if a thing doe so pertake of whitenesse, we call it white, though it faile much of the whitest whitenesse that may be. So is hee called a proud man, in whom pride preuaileth; an infidell, whom infidelitie ruleth; a reuengeful man, in whom reuenge doth beare sway; and a couetous man, in whom couetousnesse raigneth. And so must wee ⟨p. 14⟩