An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 16
Sect. 16.
The third occaſion of the miſtake cleared. Worſhip of Angels forbidden, not only not commanded. The reviving Judaical worſhip not called Will-worſhip, Col. 2. 23. Maimonides's words wreſted to a diſtant ſenſe by the Diatribiſt. Original of Angel-worſhip. Vain worſhips. Clemens confounding of Col. 2. 18. with 23. Worſhip of Angels &c. a forbidden Will-worſhip. The impoſing of virginity and abſtinences, as from God, the only crime, found fault with by S. Paul and the ancient Catholiks. Alcibiabes his uſing, and remiſſion of auſterity. The like of Spiridion and Marcianus. Cyrill of meats. 1 Tim. 5. 23. explicated.
A Third occaſion of the miſtaken ill notion of foreign I had taken notice of to be the confounding of two verſes very diſtant, the 18th and 23d of that 2d Chap. to the Coloſ. the voluntary humility and worſhipping of the Angels in the one, and the ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip and humility in the other. To which end I at large cleared the difference between thoſe two phraſes. To this he replies, that the diſtance pretended between them is ſo little, that they may eaſily be reconciled, that reſpecting a new deviſed worſhip only, and this the reviving an old out-dated worſhip.
To this I anſwer, 1. that the worſhip v. 18. being expreſſely the worſhip of Angels, that ſure is much more then Will-worſhip in the Diatribiſts notion hitherto expreſſed of it, and therefore 'tis ſtrange he ſhould now labour to perſwade us they are all one, or eaſily reconciled. Will-worſhip, as he hath hitherto defined it, is bare uncommanded, will-deviſed, or men-deviſed worſhip, and that he hath ſtill pronounced unlawful upon that one account, becauſe not commanded. But can he think the worſhip of Angels to be ſuch? Is not that diſtinctly forbidden in the firſt Commandment? Certainly it is; And if it be, hath it no other guilt by being ſo forbidden, above that which is onelyonly not commanded? 2 The Will-worſhip v. 23. is not truly affirmed to be the reviving old out-dated worſhip, For 1. the abſtinences from mariage there ſpoken of, as well as thoſe from meats, had never been commanded among the Jews. 2. Tis not there affirmed of one or other abſtinence, that it was Will-worſhip, Only thoſe doctrines of abſtinences of both ſorts are ſaid to have a ſhew of wiſdom in reſpect of the Will-worſhip diſcernible in them, and ſo likewiſe they are ſaid to have in reſpect of the ſelf-denial, and the worſhip of Angels in reſpect of the humility, that either is, or is pretended in them. And yet I hope it will not be ſaid that humility or ſelf-denial is the reviving of Judaiſme.
But however ſome advantage he reſolves to get by that §. and having no other means to acquire it, he will have it out of ſome words which I had cited out of Maimonides, the words are theſe, that the greateſt part of Idolatry came into the world, exiſtimando hanc varietatem eſſe Dei voluntatem, by the opinion that God was honoured by the worſhip of his Angels or officers, and that it was his will to have men exerciſed in this variety of worſhip. From hence the Diatribiſt ſubſumes, that the error that brought the greateſt part of idolatry into the world was, that men conceived and taught that vain worſhips and ſuperſtitions were the will and pleaſure of God.
Here I muſt demand what he means by vain worſhips? doth he mean bare will-deviſed, uncommanded worſhips, which have in his opinion no other crime in them, but their uncommandedneſſe? If ſo, then hath he much miſapplied Maimonides's words, as muſt be viſible to him, thoſe clearly belonging to the worſhip of Angels (and others beſide the one God) which all men are ſtrictly forbidden to worſhip. And then what a confuſion of things moſt diſtant, what an injuſtice is this?
But if by vain he deſigned falſe forbidden worſhips, ſuch as are by him fitly joined with ſuperſtition, and ſuch as the worship of Angels was, then indeed he knowes, or muſt in charity believe, that 'tis as much mine intereſt and inclination, as his, to faſten an ill character upon them, and to believe as much of the danger and criminouſneſſe of affirming them acceptable to God, as Maimonides could teach, or the Diatribiſt wiſh me to believe. I ſhall not fail therefore, I hope, to obey his admonition, if it be really ſuch, and be abundantly cautious neither to juſtifie nor imitate, what I ſo much diſlike and abhorre in them that are guilty of it.
What he next addes of Clemens Alexandrinus confounding thoſe two the 18. and 23. verſes, was by me produced and willingly confeſt, and made an evidence of the point there in hand, that ſome have (though without all reaſon) confounded them, and it is not imaginable how this which ſo evidently proved what I brought it to prove (evidencing the occaſion of the miſtake) ſhould be ſo ſpeedily mentioned to the diſproving of it, or be farther argumentative againſt me, then I had before acknowledged by producing it: For ſure the Diatribiſt cannot pretend that Clemens his reading was the true, foreign, if he can, all our copies of the New Teſtament will abundantly confute him. And then it is no very good indication of the truth of his cauſe, which is fain to catch hold on ſuch ſupports as this, which is acknowledged a miſtake in him, from whom it is produced, and ſo in all reaſon will cauſe miſtake to any that borrowes it from him.
But the Diatribiſt inlarges in two long Sections more to enervate what I had ſaid to ſhew the difference betwixt thoſe two verſes, And I need make no farther reply to them, then to refer the reader to the two parts of the obſervation (§. 22. and 23. of the Tract of Will-worſhip) to which his anſwers are applied, the ſecond of them clearly anſwering all that he hath objected to the firſt (if he would but have had patience to have lookt ſo much forward) and as clearly preventing what he hath ſaid to the ſecond.
The ſhort of it is, that the worship of Angels being not only not commanded but forbidden by God, the voluntary worshipping of them is acknowledged by me to be a fault, but that reſulting from the unlawfulneſs of the matter, which is under interdict in the firſt Commandment of the Decalogue, not from the voluntarineſs or uncommandedneſſe of it. And the ſame I ſhall not doubt to yield of the abſtinences from meats and mariages; Chriſt hath given perfect liberty for the uſing of both, and they that dogmatize and impoſe either or both thoſe abſtinences on Chriſtians as from God, are falſe teachers, and ſo that is their fault in impoſing, and the like in thoſe who foreign ſubject themſelves to thoſe ordinances; And yet for all this a ſpontaneous abſtaining from meats, at ſome time, foreign, for exerciſe, not for deteſtation (in a religious faſt, not out of opinion of the unlawfulneſſe of meats) being in it ſelf perfectly lawful, and ſo likewiſe celibacy or virginity in him that can receive it, there is no pretenſe from the uncommandedneſs of either, or both of theſe, that they ſhould be deemed culpable, or made parallel to that other ſort of uncommanded worſhip, where the matter is under interdict, the worſhip of Angels or impoſing of Iudaical abſtinences.
The matter is clear to any that ſhall but obſerve S. Pauls doctrine in ſeveral places, and the arguings of the Catholiks againſt the Montaniſts. S. Paul, who reſolves mariage to be honorable among all, and ſo brands them for heretiks who forbid to mary, doth yet not only allow but recommend virginity; and ſo for meats, he profeſſeth all to be lawful to all, and that no queſtion is to be made for conſcience ſake, and accordingly cenſures the Gnoſticks that they commanded to abſtain from meats, and yet the ſame Apoſtle was himſelf frequent in faſtings, and certainly had not the leaſt diſlike to thoſe performances.
So in like manner the Catholiks or orthodox Chriſtians of the Primitive Church, which objected it as a fault to the Montaniſts, that they impoſed faſting, and made it neceſſary (as may appear by the character of Montanus given by Apollonius in Eccl. hiſt. l 5. 6. 18.Euſebius, that he was foreign one that required and exacted faſtings as by the law of the Paraclete, for ſo he ſtyled himſelf, and the ſame is evident by Tertullian in his Tract, De jejuniis, when being turned Montaniſt he pleads their cauſe againſt the Orthodox under the name of Pſychici) and which anathematized the Marcionites and Encratites &c: for deeming meats unlawful, do yet every where commend and preſs the uſe of faſting, as hath formerly been ſhewed in part, and as it is known to all that have but lookt into their writings.
The paſſage of the Euſeb. hiſt. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3.Epiſtle of the Chriſtians of Lyons and Vienna to the Aſiaticks concerning Alcibiades, is remarkeable, he had lived, ſay they, foreign very auſterely, uſing nothing but bread and water, and when he was by the perſecutors caſt in priſon, he attempted to continue this ſtrict diet, but Attalus, who was in priſon, and had once been carried out into the amphitheatre, adviſed him to leave it, foreign, ſay they, having received a Revelation, that he ſhould not do well not to uſe the creatures of God, adding that he would by that means, foreign, leave an example of ſcandal, of ſnare, of ſtumbling to others, whereupon ſay they, he eate freely and gave God thanks. Here it ſeems his former courſe of auſterity and ſevereſt abſtinence was no way diſliked (and had long been practiſed by that Holy Martyr) onelyonly at this time it was thought not to be ſo fit to be continued, whether in reſpect of the combat which he was now to undergo, (foreign a combat in the amphitheatre, and if he macerated himſelf too much he might not be ſo fit for ſo weighty and difficult an undertaking, and others alſo if they ſhould follow his example might weaken themſelves overmuch, and ſo be enſnared by that means) or in ſome other reſpect, wherein his abſtinence might by the example be hurtfull to others. And upon theſe conſiderations he intermitted it; an example both of the practiſe of the ſevereſt abſtinences, and of the free uſe of meates according to the doctrine of Chriſtian liberty.
The ſame is yet more viſible in the known paſſage of Sozomen. l. 1. c. 11.Spiridion, one of the Biſhops that ſat in the Councel of Nice, who though with his family he obſerved Lent moſt ſeverely, yet on occaſion of a weary gueſt made no doubt to break his cuſtomary rules, and his gueſt being more ſcrupulous then he, foreign, ſaying he was a Chriſtian, Spiridion replied, foreign, he was the rather not to ſcruple, becauſe he was a Chriſtian, the Scripture it ſelf affirming that all things are pure to the pure. And the ſame we have in the paſſage of Marcianus to Avitus, in Tom. 3. p. 791.The doret, giving his reaſon for the breaking his aſcetick Laws of faſting, that charity was more honourable then faſting, foreign, the former being a work of Gods preſcribing, the latter of our own freedome.
The words of Cyrill of Jeruſalem Cat. 4. may conclude this matter. foreign &c. Many offend in this matter concerning meats, ſome eate indifferently all kind of meats, that which is offered to Idols &c. others abſtain, and condemne all that eate, and ſo the ſoul is diverſly polluted in this matter of meats, by not knowing the profitable cauſes of eating and not eating, when we faſt we abſtain from fleſh and wine, not hating them as abominations, but expecting our reward, that contemning ſenſible delights we may injoy the ſpiritual and intellectual Table, and that now ſowing in tears we may reap in joy in the world to come. Deſpiſe not therefore thoſe that eate, and partake, becauſe of the weakneſs of their bodies, neither find fault with (foreign the Barocian MS. reads not foreign) thoſe that uſe a little wine for their ſtomack, and frequent infirmities, neither condemne them as ſinners (the Barocian MS. adding to the Printed Copies, foreign) nor hate fleſh as ſtrange (or unfit for a Chriſtian) for of ſuch the Apoſtle took eſpecial notice, ſaying, they forbid to marry and abſtain from meats, from ſuch keep thy ſelf, and abſtain not from meats as deteſtable things, if thou doſt thou haſt no reward, but ſuppoſing them good, omit to make uſe of them foreign (foreign the Barocian Copie reads) foreign, becauſe of the intellectual better things which are ſet before thee, or wich thou hopeſt to receive.
Where it is evident how faſting and abſtinences being freely and ſpontaneouſly uſed, and not as neceſſary, or the contrary unlawfull, but perfectly ſpontaneous and uncommanded abſtinences, are yet ſo far from being ſinfull (if they be not joyned with condemning of others which eate) that they are highly rewardable by God. Nothing could be ſaid more dilucidly and fully to this whole matter.
This place of Cyrills will by the way give us a fuller underſtanding of that exhortation of S. Paul to Timothie, 1 Tim. 5. 23. Drinke no longer water, but uſe a little wine &c.] then formerly I had taken notice of in the Annotation on that place, in relation to the words precedent there, Lay hands ſuddenly on no man, neither partake of other mens ſins, keep thy ſelf pure, drinke no longer water &c. Thus, thoſe that by the Gnoſticks infuſions and falſe doctrines, c. 4. 1, 2, 3. have been ſeduced into error and by that means fallen under thy cenſures, are not to be over favorably uſed, nor too ſpeedily abſolved, and then (on that occaſion, as in a parentheſis) be ſure thou fall not thy ſelf into their ſnares, thoſe errors, or faults conſequent thereto, which thou art to cenſure in others; And theſe errors being ſpecially two, the commanding to abſtain, from mariage and from meats, for the former of them, be ſure, that as thou abſtaineſt from mariage, ſo thou preſerve thy ſelf perfectly pure from all the Gnoſtick pollutions conſequent to their doctrines of hating mariage, (that is the meaning of foreign) and for the latter, though thou uſeſt auſterities and faſtings, which may be uſefull to virginal Chaſtity, yet do not this to the hurting of thy body, but in conſideration of thy infirme habit of body, thy frequent indiſpoſitions, give thy ſelf the uſe of lawfull liberties, take wine ſometimes in a moderate proportion, & keep not thy ſelf ſo ſtrictly to water-drinking, as perſons of auſterity uſe to do.
All this (and much more might be added of the ſame nature) makes it moſt evident, that uncommanded performances (ſuch ſure were virginity or faſting) had no ill character faſtned on them by thoſe ſame Orthodox Fathers, who yet would not indure to have them impoſed on Chriſtians, as from God, but brand all ſuch, as attempt it, for falſe teachers.