From John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, vol. 1, translated by Josiah Allport (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), p. 529 – 539.
Col. 2:23, “Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will-worship and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.”
In these words of the Apostle we have a censure of human rites and traditions which are obtruded upon Christians under the notion of necessity, righteousness, or the divine worship. The passage is well worthy of being diligently considered. For hence we may perceive that the Papists can allege nothing for their traditions, which was not alleged by ancient impostors, and refuted by the Apostles; that we do nothing else, when we oppose the same, than what Christ himself, what his Apostles before us have done, and what they would have us to do for the sake of retaining Christian liberty.
In this verse, therefore, which puts a conclusion to the refutation, there are three things to be observed and explained, as to those rites prescribed by men:
1. We must observe the Apostle’s concession: for he condedes to them λόγον σοφίας. “Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom.”
2. Three pretences are to be noted, by which for the most part human traditions are covered to wear the appearance of wisdom. These are, will-worship, humility, and neglecting of the body.
3. We may observe the censure of the Apostle, who, notwithstanding these pretences so fair, accounts these commandments of men for things of nought: “not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.”
“Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom.” The Greek word λόγον, which some translate “reason,” some “shew,” and others “pretense,” with little difference of sense. For the Apostle means this: The aforesaid commandments of men have a shew, or external appearance of wisdom, they have not the reality and truth. There is, then, in these words, a prolepsis, or anticipation, which, whilst it concedes to the adversaries what they could allege in pretence, at the same time would have them understand that it was of no value. But when the Apostle says, these doctrines of men “have a shew of wisdom,” he means, that they have the appeareance of some excellent doctrine, rather brought from heaven than excogitated by human counsel: for thus the word “wisdom” is used by Paul, as Beza hath rightly observed.
1. And they have this shew or pretence, First, on the part of the impostors. For these, for the most part, pretend, that they do not bring forward any thing of their own mind, but promulgate those things, being enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom himself. Under this pretence, Montanus formerly vaunted his prophecies, and imposed upon many: for thus Tertullian, De praescript., before he was a Montanist himself, writes, “They assert that the Paraclete spake more things to Montanus than Christ delivered in the Gospel, and not only more, but even better and greater.” Those who are a little more modest, venture not to pretend immediate revelations of the Holy Spirit; yet, that their notions may not appear destitute of a shew of divine wisdom, they are wont to affirm, as it is stated in Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 2, “that their doctrines were not indeed consigned in writing by the Apostles, but delivered to them viva voce, according to that saying, ‘We speak wisdom among the perfect,’ and their own fictions every one asserts to be this wisdom.” Thus says Irenaeus. Therefore human traditions have this shew of wisdom on the part of the imposters.
2. On the part of superstitious and carnal men, they have a shew of wisdom, because carnal things are suited to the taste of carnal men, but spiritual things are not esteemed. Whence that saying of the Apostle, Rom. 8:7, “The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God;” and 1 Cor. 2:5, “Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” For that seems full of wisdom to a carnal man, which accords with the nature and disposition of the flesh; and nothing is more pleasing to the carnal mind, than to have salvation, righteousness, and holiness in rites and external things. You see, therefore, how human traditions “have a shew of wisdom;” namely, 1. From the fraud of imposters, who always boast that they flowed from the Spirit of wisdom. 2. From the carnal nature of superstitious men, whom it always pleases to seek salvation and righteousness in rites and external exercises. But, nevertheless, we must hold, that they have the shew only, and, as it were, a vain shadow of wisdom, not the reality. For, as Lactantius has truly said, Instit. bk. 4, ch. 1, “Where the repute of foolishness appears, there wisdom is chiefly to be sought;” so we may truly affirm, where to the carnal man the repute of wisdom appears, there folly is always to be found. “For this wisdom descendeth not from the Father of lights, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.” James 3:15.
Instructions:
1. They are to be accounted for imposters who, in the business of salvation, obtrude upon us doctrines under the pretence of revelation or tradition, without the testimony of the word. For whatsoever shew, or rather shadow of wisdom there might be in these human inventions, yet true and saving wisdom will never be found in them.
2. In the worship of God we ought not to run after and embrace those things which are most approved by human reason; for if we use this guide, we shall, instead of true wisdom, embrace some shew, and painted shadow of wisdom.
3. Hence we infer what you ought to conclude about popery, viz. whether it possesses that genuine wisdom, or only “the shew of wisdom.” It obtrudes its doctrines, and its innumerable commandments, as necessary to salvation: but under what pretence? The same with all impostors; viz. that all its decrees flow from the Holy Spirit directing and inspiring the Church; that they do not bring in human commandments, but those unwritten traditions which the Apostles left as a deposit to Rome. Behold a wonderful shew of divine wisdom! But if I further ask, How will it be proved to me that these your ordinances have flowed from the Spirit of God and from the Apostles? Forthwith they retort against you, “Either believe, or be accursed:” but in the meantime they produce no testimony from the word of God. They who thus confirm their dogmas, may display among the unskillful “a shew of wisdom,” but among the sober, and the prudent, they will be accounted to have lost the thing itself. Thus much concerning the Apostle’s concession, that there is only a “shew” of divine wisdom in the doctrines and commandments of seducers.
“In will-worship,” ἐν ἐθελοθρησκεία. He begins to shew with what colors seducers were wont to paint this false wisdom. The first is, as you may call it, voluntary worship; i.e. not commanded or prescribed by God himself, but offered to him by human will and choice. This, then, is urged by impostors: “He who performs only those things which are bidden and commanded by God himself, does nothing but what is common; but he who goes beyond those precepts and worships God by certain voluntary works, to which he is not bound, he becomes as an angel among men; he lays up to himself merits of supererogation; he finally makes God a debtor to him. And this will-worship is very pleasing to human nature. For since there is a double will-worship; one when a person of his own accord chooses any creature to whom he offers the worship due to God; the other, when he worships the true God, but not in that manner, neither by those acts whereby he hath defined his worship, but by others, chosen by his own will: the former species of will-worship is condemned by almost all, because it clearly detracts from God what is his own, and transfers it to the creature; but this other is commended by many because it seems to offer to God what is his own, and something beyond it. It has, therefore, as it were, the appearance of a certain free-will offering.
This color is imposed upon the monks, who think that they, inasmuch as they worship God by certain works not commanded by God himself, are in a higher and more perfect condition than other men who endeavor to perform only those things which are enjoined. Hence, also, they have dreamed, that they so overflow with merits, that they hesitate not daily to bestow out of their great trasure upon others. Hence, also, the ignorant multitude are not only accustomed to beg, but to purchase at any price the superabundant merits of the monks. Nay, for this end, they say monasteries are instituted, “that they may make satisfaction for the sins of their founders, and of all in general,” Gerson, pt. 2, serm. de abstinent. Carthus. But lest we should be deceived by this same pretext, we ought to remember that God, indeed, loves the willing worshipper, i.e. him who joyfully and willingly does that which he hath commanded to be done; but that he hates will-worship, i.e. those acts which are offered to him as the immediate worship of God, when they were not prescribed and commanded by him for this end: for this is “to go a-whoring with their own inventions,” Ps. 106:39. We must also know that abstinence from certain meats, celibacy, voluntary poverty, and other things of that kind, in which impostors place this voluntary worship of God, and I know not what merit of supererogation, are nothing else than things and actions indifferent, which, to certain persons at certain times, may be instruments, or means availing in the worship of God, as also their contraries may be. But, neither in the one nor the other, ought we to imagine that there is any worship or merit.
And so far as to the first pretext, wherewith secuders are wont to gloss over their commandments.
“And humility.” This is the second color with which the commandments and doctrines of men are painted. For all seducers endeavor to persuade the people that there is nothing more pleasing to God than humility, and devoted submission of mind; which they would have to consist in this, that Christians should submit themselves simply and absolutely to those who are set over them, and to their traditions and commandments, believe whatever they propose to be believed, and do whatever they direct to be done. This humility they babble about as being of the greatest merit with God, because he has enjoined all, “Obey them that have the rule over you,” Heb. 13:17, and because he himself has plainly said concerning this matter, “He that heareth you, heareth me,” Luke 10:16. They, moveover, add that this especially conduces to the salvation of Christians, that they should not discuss the commands of those who are set over them (such as the worship and faith recommended by them to the Church), but receive and observe them; because it is most safe for the ignorant to follow the opinion of the more wise. When, by this artifice, they have procured for their rites and doctrines an authority plainly divine, the submission and obedience of Christian people seems to “have a shew of wisdom,” so that by this their subjection, they think not only thus to act piously, but prudently. Ignatius of Loyola, the father of the Jesuits, deceived by this pretence, advises in that Epistle which is read in the College of the Jesuits every month, and seriously commands, that those things which the Superior enjoins, they should simply perform with a blind obedience, not considering whether what is enjoined is good or useful, since every thought of the kind takes away the merit and weight of obedience. It is also the common opinion of the Romanists that there ought to be such a humility among Christians that they should not have the least doubt about those things which are set forth by the Romish Church, as to faith or practice in religion and the worship of God. But we, notwithstanding, may truly assert that this blind obedience and humility is not only foolish, but impious and irreligious. And the grounds for this are,
1. Because we are bound to obey superiors only in cases in which they are our superiors. Now, as to the framing doctrines of faith, or instituting the worship of God, God alone is our superior. If, therefore, men attempt to devise doctrines of faith, or to introduce a new worship, they step beyond the limits of the power granted them, and are not to be acknowledged as superiors in this matter.
2. Because the command of an inferior authority does not oblige to obedience when it is contrary to the command of a superior. Hence that remark of the Apostles, Acts 5:29, “It is meet to obey God rather than man.” And of Cyprian, De Sing. Cler., “It is not allowable to please men where the will of men includes not the will of God.” But admonitions of this kind would be vain, if a blind obedience in all things was due to our superiors.
3. Because no one subjects himself knowingly to the peril of mortal sin, but he thereby sins mortally, as the Schoolmen say. But whoever vows, or performs absolute subjection and blind obedience to men, subjects himself to manifest peril; for every man may err, as well in commanding to do things which are evil, as in prescribing to believe things which are false.
4. Because to attribute to men what is the peculiar right of God, is great impiety: but absolute dominion over our bodies and our minds, is the property of God alone. The human will owes absolute obedience to him; the understanding owes to him prompt assent in all things: but to yield to any mortal such subjection of the will, and of the understanding, incurs the crime of treason against the divine majesty. For that saying of Tertullian concerning God and the divine commands is true: “I esteem it audacity to dispute about the goodness of a divine precept: for we ought to obey it, not because it is good, but because God hath commanded it.” (De poenit.) And that is no less true of the Apostle, when men order us to do or to believe anything. “Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good,” 1 Thes. 5:21.
But they who require this preposterous humility and blind obedience from the people, are wont to object that it is not the duty of subjects to judge of the doctrines or commands of their superiors; but it rather pertains to the prelates and superiors, to judge of the faith and actions of subjects. Therefore, they seem to recede from their duty, when they doubt whether those things are true and lawful which are promulgated and confirmed by the authority of those who are set over them.
I answer, subjects neither ought, nor can judge of the decrees of superiors by a judgment of authority; but they can, and ought to judge of those things with a judgment of discretion, as far as they concern themselves. Aquinas very well explains the reason of this, Quaest. disp. de consens. art. 5: “Every one,” says he, “is bound to examine his own actions according to the knowledge he has from God, whether it be natural, or acquired, or infused; for every man ought to act according to reason.” Thus speaks Aquinas. This is confirmed by the example of all the pious; who, although they arrogated not to themselves a judgment of authority over their prelates or magistrates, yet they used a judgment of discretion about the things proposed to them. We see this done by Daniel, who judged that the edict of Darius, concerning him not praying to God, was not to be observed by him. We see it in the Apostles, who judged that they could not, consistently with piety, obey the commands of the priests, Acts 4:20. Finally, this was done in the reign of Mary, by all our martyrs; who judged rightly that they ought neither to believe those things which were then proposed by the prelates to be believed, nor to do what they commanded to be done.
From these things, then, it is evident that even the second color also of submission and meritorious humility, whereby human decrees are commended to the people, is vain, and has nothing of true wisdom in it.
Reformed Theology Delatinized 