An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 5
Sect. 5. Col: 2. 22. foreign. Placing worſhip. Chriſtian liberty. Marriage. The Gloſſes put on the commands of men.
HIS 5t §. is an examination of what I have ſaid for the interpreting of [foreign] Col: 2. 22. This phraſe I have thus rendred and paraphraſed, Theſe commands of abſtinencies (Touch not, taſte not, handle not, v. 21.) are all to deſtruction, or deſtructive, by the abuſe of them, i. e. by impoſing them on Chriſtians, as commands of God, now when they are aboliſht by Chriſt, and for this I thought I had produced ſufficient authority, to vindicate the interpretation from the cenſure of ſingularity, the plain words of S. Anguſtine, and S. Ambroſe, or whoſoever it is that wrote the Comments which bear his name, Sunt in interitum &c. they are to deſtruction and eternal perdition to them that believe them neceſſary to ſalvation, and ſunt omnia in interitum & corruptionem per abuſionem, &c. they are all to deſtruction and corruption by abuſe, &c.
But without adverting to the commodiouſneſſe of the interpretation, or the authority of thoſe ancient Fathers, or giving any anſwer to what is ſaid to recommend this interpretation, he is pleaſed to take a much eaſier way, to ask ſome queſtions, and offer ſome exceptions, Firſt he asks, why I refuſe our tranſlation of thoſe words?
To this queſtion I anſwer, by rendring my reaſons, 1. becauſe I think this other preferrable, and I doubt not but when the Diatribiſt findes it uſeful, he will do the like in this or any other controverſie; 2dly becauſe [foreign] cannot by any propriety of ſpeech, or analogy of the like phraſe, ſignifie [are to periſh] but either in an active ſenſe [are to corruption] as that in falſe teachers may denote corrupting or ſeducing of others to their herefie, and particularly to thoſe abominable ſins, which by deteſting of marriage the Gnoſticks brought in, expreſt often in theſe Epiſtles by the word foreign corruption, or elſe in a neutral ſenſe, ad interitum to deſtruction. 3dly Becauſe though foreign may poſſibly ſignifie uſe, as well as abuſe, yet it is as eaſily replyed, that it ſignifies abuſe as well, nay more properly and frequently then uſe; In the Bible it is an foreign, never uſed either in the verb, or in the ſubſtantive, but in this place; but in other authors 'tis vulgarly uſed in oppoſition to foreign uſe, foreign, in Plutarch of Alcibiades, the Lacedemonians rather abuſed then uſed him, and in Apophtheg: that great men have good and ill friends, foreign, they uſe ſome and abuſe others, and many the like. 4thly Becauſe the Notion which the Diatribiſt from the civil Lawyers, out of Eſtius gives of the Latin abuſus, is that of conſuming uſe, whereas it is both improbable that S. Paul ſhould take it from the civil Law, (much more probable that he ſhould take it in the ſenſe, in which we finde abuſio ſometimes among Divines for foreign abſtinence or not uſing at all: So Proſper de vit: contempl: l. 2. c. 22. veraciter abſtinentes eſcarum non naturas ſed concupiſcentias damnent, ac voluptates ſuas deſiderati cibi vel potus abuſione mortificent, which ſenſe alſo the words here would bear well enough, and be a more punctual character of the Gnoſticks abſtinence from marriage, by which they brought in all abominable villanies) and if he did, it would as fitly comply with mine as with his notion of it, for thus it ſignifies abolition or wearing out, foreign, uſu attero & obſolefacio, and to that agrees Phavorinus, rendring foreign by foreign, and Suidas by foreign, deſtroying, and then this would be the rendring theſe impoſitions of [Touch not, &c.] which were once in force under the Jewiſh ſtate, but now aboliſht under Chriſt, are thereby to deſtruction, or to ruin of ſouls, as when the Apoſtle tells them in one place of theſe ceremonies, that they are foreign Heb: 8. 13. nigh to vaniſhing away, to abolition, and upon that account in another place, that if they look upon them as things ſtill in force among Chriſtians, Chriſt ſhall profit them nothing: But this I do not really think to be the notion of foreign, becauſe thoſe that render it [uſing] generally apply it to the meats, which are conſumed by eating (and by the way, Oecumenius, that underſtood it in this ſenſe, read it not foreign but foreign, a word which denotes caſting out of excrements) which yet moſt evidently belongs to the foreign doctrines of abſtinence, not to meats, and indeed the antecedent (to which foreign, all which referres) is, Touch not, taſte not, handle not, which denotes other abſtinencies, beſide that of meats, particularly that of marriage, which theſe Gnoſticks prohibited, and taught to be abominable, and that is not capable of this notion of foreign, by uſing, for ſure marriage doth not periſh by uſing. And the like may be ſaid of unclean things, the leper, the dead, that Judaizers would not touch, which yet did not periſh, were not conſumed by uſing.
And though in the next place the Diatribiſt leave it indifferently betwixt meats add ordinances of abſtaining (which are contrary enough) yet the notion of uſing is no way applicable to the latter; for what the Diatribiſt ſets for the interpretation of it [now being out-dated they periſh with the uſing, without any ſpiritual advantage] is ſure very ſhort, it being evident by other places of Scripture, that the impoſing theſe out-dated obſervances, is not only not advantageous, but moreover hurtful, thoſe being as the Fathers generally reſolve, not only mortua, dead, and ſo profitleſſe, but alſo mortifera, deadly, deſtructive; and ſure that is the meaning of [foreign to periſhing, or deſtruction] whether it denote damnation it ſelf, or thoſe horrible or unnatural ſins, and the ſeduction of the Gnoſticks which certainly induce it.
In the 3d place he quarrels with my interpretation for ſuppoſing that theſe abſtinencies were impoſed and taught by the falſe teachers as divine obliging precepts, whereas, ſaith he, there is little or nothing in the text to import that. What will with him, when produced againſt his ſenſe and intereſts, be accounted great, I know not; but that there is ſomething in the text, to incline it this way, will ſoon be evident, 1. by the word foreign v. 20. That foreign and foreign, doctrines, ſignifie thoſe things which are taught as from God, Mat. 15. 9. hath been formerly ſhewed, and is evidens from the form of ſpeech, in vain do they worſhip me, foreign teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, where the commands of men are taught, not as ſuch, but as doctrines of God; From hence the active foreign to dogmatize, ordinarily denotes teaching thoſe things to be divine precepts, and ſo obliging conſcience, which are not, and accordingly the paſſive foreign muſt needs denote the having ſuch weights thus impoſed upon them being ſubject to ordinances (or doctrines) as we rightly render it.
Theſe are in the beginning of that 20. v. called foreign, the elements of the world, whether of the Jewiſh or Gentile ſervice, both nailed to his croſſe by Chriſt, cancelled in his death, but ſuch as were incumbent on the foreign, thoſe that lived in the world, being under thoſe elements, or initial ordinances, though Chriſtians were not. 3. Theſe are ſpecified what they were, Touch not, taſte not, handle not, abſtinences from meats, and from marriage; that of meats evidently a precept of Gods to the Jewes, and the Gnoſticks divinity being in part compounded of Judaiſm, there is no reaſon to doubt but they taught theſe abſtinencies, as the Jewes taught them, i. e. as divine obliging precepts, and joined abſtinence from marriage to that of meats, in the ſame form, i. e. as under precept alſo.
As for that which the Diatribiſt addes to confirm his objection, viz: that in the next verſe they are called the commandments and doctrines of men] it hath no force in it, for ſo really they were, and not of God, but yet were by the falſe teachers impoſed under a more honourable gloſſe, as commands not of men, but of God, and therein their falſe teaching conſiſted, And it is ſtrange the Diatribiſt could ſay of ſuch falſe doctrines, that they could not be pretended, much leſſe impoſed as a divine command] Tis as if he ſhould ſay, Falſe teachers could not teach falſe, hypocrites and deceivers could not pretend the authority of Scripture for their errors, the Devil could not put on the appearance of an Angel of light.
So again 'tis with equal truth, that he ſaith, the traditions were not pleaded to be the commandments of God, but expreſſely called the commandments of men, Mat. 15. 9. when 'tis evident that thoſe commandments of men were by the Phariſees taught as foreign doctrines and ſo commandments of God, though by Chriſt affirmed in truth to be oppoſite to Gods real commands, v. 3. 6. it being very ordinary with hereticks, and hypocrites, to pretend that to be the will and command of God, which is moſt extremely contrary to it. And in that the Phariſees ſin and hypocriſie conſiſted.
Fourthly, he would ask me another queſtion, whether the placing the worſhip of God in the obſervation of thoſe ordinances, though not taught or impoſed as God's commands, were not an abuſe of them, and foreign; And I anſwer, 1. By asking what he means by the worſhip of God, if ſuch as man may juſtly preſcribe or practiſe, either ceremonies perfectly lawfull, but not preſcribed by God, or more then ſo, that which is ſure to be accepted by him, though yet it be not under divine precept, then 'tis certain 'twere no abuſe; but if he mean the commanded worſhip of God, then his queſtion implyes a contradiction, for whatſoever this worſhip of God is placed in, that is taught, as command of God, for elſe it were not Gods preſcribed worſhip, which yet it is ſuppoſed to be. 2. That theſe abſtinencies being of ſuch a nature, that Chriſt removed all ordinances requiring them, and purpoſely deſigned that they ſhould be left free to men, no humane authority could lawfully impoſe them, no man can forbid marriage to Chriſtians, and ſo any ſuch command were an abuſe of authority if given by lawful ſuperiors; (or if given by others, an act of intruſion and uſurpation, for who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren?)
But then this may not be extended to all ceremonies and circumſtances of the worſhip of God, times, geſtures, &c. for Chriſt never expreſt any abſolute diſlike to all ſuch, nor can the impoſing of ſuch, with prudence in reſpect of choiſe, and moderation in reſpect of number, be by any analogic reducible to thoſe abſtinencies of which the Apoſtle there ſpeaks. Nay even for thoſe, particularly abſtinence from marriage, tis certain that it may be lawfully practiſed by him that can bear it, and that all the error is in impoſing it on others, contrary to that liberty which Chriſt hath for weighty reaſons allowed, and required to continue allowable and honorable among Chriſtians.
Laſtly, He argues from the following words, v. 23. where the Apoſtle ſayes, they have a ſhew of wiſdome, in Will-worſhip, not as the commands of God, and thence he concludes their abuſe to be, not that they impoſed them as divine commands, but as parts of divine worſhip; But I anſwer, that that verſe is not the ſetting down the abuſe, or the defining wherein it conſiſts, but at the utmoſt, a deſcription of the faire gloſſes, thoſe abſtinencies and falſe worſhips were capable of, viz. a double ſhew or appearance of piety, one in Will-worſhip, offering to God a free will offering, for ſuch is every uncommanded, if lawfull abſtinence, but ſuch was not this, and therefore 'twas but a ſhew of piety; and another in humility, worſhipping Angels as the miniſters of God, humility indeed a moſt Chriſtian virtue, but this no juſtifiable humility, (To which alſo a third is ſubjoyned, that of ſelf-denyal or auſterity, of the ſame kind with the former) and ſo ſtill 'twas but a ſhew, no reality of wiſdome or piety, which conſiſted in this.