An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 3
Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. anſwered. The difference betwixt Commands of Magiſtrates and impoſition of dogmatizers. What tis which is ſaid to have foreign.
HIS 3d §. is his entrance on the view of Col. 2. where onelyonly the word Will-worſhip is to be found; and in ſetting down his grounds of interpreting it, 1. He citeth Beza and BP. Davenant, whoſe words are preſently anſwered, by adverting to the diſtinction formerly given between the eſſentials and circumſtantials, the parts and the ceremonies of worſhip.
2dly. He pretends to diſcover a miſtake in me, in that I obſerve from v. 22. that St Paul ſpeaks not of commands but doctrines, not of the prohibition of the Magiſtrate, but of falſe teachers impoſing them as the commands of God; Whereas, ſaith he, the Apoſtle ſpeaks expreſſely of theſe impoſitions, that they were after the Commandments and doctrines of men, v. 8. after the traditions of men to worſhip God by the obſervation of them.] Of which words of his, if there be any ſhadow of force in them by way of exception againſt me, the meaning muſt be, that the Apoſtle there ſpeaks of the commands or prohibitions of Magiſtrates in things of themſelves perfectly indifferent, and cenſures thoſe commands under the ſtyle of Will-worſhip.
But then this hath no degree of truth in it, for 1. The matter of the commands is no lawful matter, but either the worſhip of Angels (and that is criminous, as the worſhipping of a creature) or the reducing of antiquated rites of Judaiſme, which ought not to be reduced, being once cancelled and nailed to the croſs of Chriſt. 2. The commands were not commands of Magiſtrates, but of men which had no authority to preſcribe any thing, eſpecially ſo contrary to the doctrine which the Apoſtles had planted among them, the Chriſtian liberty from the Judaical yoke. 3. The manner of impoſing them was quite diſtant from that of the Magiſtrates giving laws Eccleſiaſtical or Civil, thoſe are by way of Canon, as of things indifferent, in order to decency, and the like, without ever pretending them to be in themſelves neceſſary, as commanded by God; theſe are impoſed as from God when they are not ſo and that is the known ſin of dogmatizing, to which I formerly applied the place; And the word foreign commands, ſignifies no more then ſo, being joyned with, and explicated by foreign doctrines, i. e. ſuch things as falſe teachers require all men to do in obedience to God, or as if they were now commanded by him, when ſome of them, as abſtinencies, &c. having once been required by God, are now aboliſht by Chriſt, and the other, the worſhip of Angels, though it pretend not ever to have been commanded, but onelyonly to be acceptable to God, is clearly forbidden by him.
So that here is a palpable miſtake in the Diatribiſt, who obſerves them to be commands (meaning, as he muſt, if he cenſureth or oppoſeth me, commands of Magiſtrates) and not onelyonly doctrines of falſe teachers, when indeed commands and doctrines are all one, both joyned together to ſignifie theſe dogmatizers, pretending the things which they taught to be in force by Divine command, by virtue of the Law given to Moſes, and not onelyonly ſuch as would be accepted by God, as of the worſhip of Angels I ſuppoſe was pretended by thoſe falſe teachers.
For this is to be remembred here once for all, that the ſeducers ſpoken of in that Chapter were the Gnoſtick hereticks, who made up their Theologie of Judaical and heatheniſh additions to the Chriſtian truth; from the Jews they had many abſtinences, ſuch as were now aboliſht by Chriſt, and thoſe they impoſed as commands of God, when they were not; and from the heathens the doctrine of the Aeones or Angels, as creators of this inferior world, and ſo ſuch as might, with Gods good liking, be worſhipt by us.
Laſtly, Thoſe commands of theirs are not cenſured by the Apoſtle, as acts of Will-worſhip, or blamed, or put under any ill character for being ſuch, any more then for being acts of humility, which is foreign joyned with Will-worſhip in that place v. 22. but as intrenchments on that liberty purchaſed for them by the death of Chriſt v. 20. which had cancelled theſe Judaical ordinances to all that were dead with him, i. e. to Chriſtians, and had turned all Daemon worſhip out of their hearts, but had no way bound up the hands of his Apoſtles or their ſucceſſors the Governors of the Church, from inſtituting ceremonies or feſtivals among Chriſtians.
When the Diatribiſt addes of Will-worſhip, that it had a ſhew of wiſdome but no more, tis but a begging the queſtion, or if it pretend to be concluded from that text, it is without all ground ſo pretended, for if I ſhall grant foreign to ſignifie onelyonly a ſhew, no reality of wiſdome, yet it is not of Will-worſhip that that is affirmed, any more them of humility (and I hope humility which is an acknowledged Chriſtian virtue, hath more then a ſhew of wiſdome in it) but of the retrenchments of their Chriſtian liberty, their foreign v. 20. ſubjection to the doctrines and impoſitions of falſe teachers, which had foreign, ſome either ſhew or reality of wiſdome foreign foreign in Will-worſhip and humility, which they could not have, if either or both thoſe, when really belonging to any, had no more then a ſhew of wiſdome in them. But of this I have ſaid enough in the Tract of Will-worſhip, §. 12.