The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 3 – Section 4
Sect. 3. What the word, foreign, in the place, Col. 2.23. ſignifieth, may indeed be gathered from the context, &c.
IN manifeſting the ſcope of the text, I uſed the Interpretation of Beza, and Biſhop Davenant; ſuppoſing it to be, to beat down ſome Corruptions creeping into their Worſhip; and all Rites and Ceremonies, obtruded as parts of Worſhip, &c. To this he ſayes, p. 101. n. 1.Their words are preſently anſwered, by adverting to the diſtinction, given, between the Eſſentials and Circumſtantials; the parts and Ceremonies of Worſhip.] Nothing here but confuſion ſtill: For 1. What is this to the point in hand, the ſcope of the Apoſtle in this Chapter? 2. One of them, expreſly ſayes, the Apoſtle diſputes againſt all Rites and Ceremonies, obtruded as parts of Worſhip; what is his diſtinction to this? or how is it any anſwer to them at all? It is not yet the queſtion, what is meant by Will-worſhip, by thoſe learned men, but what the Apoſtles ſcope; Let him apply his diſtinction, and ſee it's vanity.
The next is as bad a miſtake; p. 102. n. 2, 3.[That I charge him, to ſay, that the Apoſtle there ſpeaks of the commands, or prohibitions of Magiſtrates, verſ. 22. in things indifferent, and cenſures thoſe under the ſtile of Will-worſhip.] The clean contrary is aſſerted by me; The miſtake lies in this, (and that I charge the Doctor with,) that he ſayes, [The Apostle does not ſpeak of Commands, but Doctrines:] Whereas I ſay, he ſpeaks of Commands, as well as Doctrines: (both the words are here) commands I ſay, not of the Magiſtrate, that I diſclaim as well as he; but of Falſe-Teachers, See my 4. ſ. and his own acknowledgment. p. 104. n. 1.who laid thoſe Abſtinencies upon their Diſciples, as their Doctrines and Commands; but were nothing but Traditions and commands of men; who had no Authority, in point of Worſhip, ſo to impoſe upon the people of God: and then all his labour in the 3. and 4. numb. is utterly loſt. What the meaning of Commands here is, and whether the ſame with Doctrines (as the Doctor ſayes) we ſhall conſider anon. But one thing, muſt here be remembred, (he ſayes) [That the Seducers ſpoken of in that Chapter were the Gnoſtick Hereticks.] p. 103. n. 5.This is once afore ſaid by him, and many times more hereafter, I know not well how oft; I ſhall here ſpeak to it, once for all, and but point at it, when ever it comes again. 1. The Gnoſtick Hereticks, were not yet hatched, when Paul writ this Epiſtle to the Coloſſians; I finde no newes of them, till the time of Baſilides, Carpocrates and Valentinian, who all lived in the ſecond Century, about 120. or 130. Theſe were the firſt, that cal'd themſelves Gnoſticks, as men of greater knowledge then any others. So Iraeneus lib. 1. Of Hereſie, c. 34. Ex his, &c. from theſe, Baſilides, Carpoor, &c. Who were formerly cal'd Sinoniani, the multitude of the Gnoſticks did ariſe. So Tertull. Adverſ. Valentin. Atque ita inſoleſcentes doctrinae Valentiniorum, in ſylvas jam exoleverunt Gnoſticorum. Upon which words, Rhenanus thus, Valentiniani ſuperbo nomine, ſe Gnoſticos appellabant. Horam principem facit Irenaeus, Valentinianum. I know how the Doctor will evade, by ſaying, The name indeed began then, but the Doctrines were the ſame, with thoſe of Nicholas and Simon, &c. who lived in the Apoſtles times: So Epiphan. and Auſtin ſeem to ſay.But that's but an equivocation, or evaſion, to ſay the Gnoſticks were in that time, and meant here by the Apoſtle, becauſe they ſuckt ſome of their poyſon from thoſe Hereticks: Saint Paul therefore could not properly intend the Gnoſticks. 2. This is Eſtius, a Papiſts gloſs upon 1 Tim. 6.20. [Oppoſitions of ſcience falſly ſo called,] a fitter text to be applied to the Gnoſticks, then this of ours; Quamvis credi poteſt, Gnoſticorum nomen non ſtatim cum haereſi emerſiſſe, ſed aliquantò poſt tamen Apoſtolorum temporibus rem ipſam, jam tum à Simone & Nicolao originem accepiſſe certum eſt. But in that ſenſe, the Gnoſticks may be ſaid to have their Original from the ancient Baalites, and Heathens, who were as abominable in their filthy worſhips of their Gods, as the Gnoſticks lightly could be. 3. The beſt Commentators on this place, never dream'd of the Gnoſticks; but generally ſay, the Apoſtle oppoſes himſelf againſt two Sects, then troubling the Church: Firſt, ſome Philoſophers turn'd Chriſtians, who brought in Philoſophical ſpeculations; at theſe he ſtrikes, verſe 8. and 18. in Worſhip of Angels. Secondly, ſome Judaizing Chriſtians, who would keep up the Ceremonial Law with the Goſpel; againſt theſe are the 16.20, 21, 22. verſes. In particular, the 21 verſe hath clear reference to the Abſtinencies formerly commanded the Jews, but now aboliſhed by Chriſt, Touch not, taſte not, &c. as ſome ſay. However, there is little or no colour to bring in the Gnoſticks here; who though they agreed with others, in abſtaining from ſuch meats and drinks, yet the chief poyſon of that Sect was, in abandoning and vilifying of Marriage, and in other abominable filthineſſes, for which they had not the leaſt pretence from the Jewes (with whom the Doctor ſayes they joyn'd) to abſtain from Marriage, that being never prohibited to the Jewes, as ſome meats and drinks were: yet the Doctor ſpeaks hereafter, See p. 109. n. 3. n. 10.as if the Apoſtle here intended them, that forbad Marriage; as the Gnoſticks after did. And I do a little wonder how he miſt a Criticiſme in the 21. ver. Ne attigeris, touch not; that is, Marry not; (ſo the Gnoſticks ſaid) for which he had a fair text of Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.1. [It's good for a man, foreign, not to touch a woman;] that is, not to Marry. So in the text here, Touch not, firſt, Marry not; Taſte not, firſt, ſuch or ſuch a meat, &c. But enough of this at preſent, for it will often meet us again. For the reſt in this his third Section, it will come to be condered in a fitter place: onelyonly ſaying now, That, a ſhew of wiſdom is applyable to *No juſtifiable humility, p. 112. n. 10. And auſterity is of the ſame kinde there.humility, and the reſt, as well as to Willworſhip; all being equally naught and condemned.
Sect. 4. That we have not miſtaken the Doctors meaning, will appear by that which he addes, &c.
THe chief buſineſs in this Section, is to ſpeak to the inſtance of David, appointing the Levites to ſerve from the age of 20. years: whereas God by Moſes had appointed it but from 25. p. 105. n. 6.The Doctor ſayes, he made this alteration upon prudential reaſons, as a King, not as a Prophet: or by inſpiration, as my places of Scripture import. 'Tis true, there are prudential reaſons given for what he did: but prudence of man is not ſufficient to alter the inſtitutions of God: It's this prudence that hath undone the Church, that men will be wiſer then God, in altering and adding to the Rule of his Worſhip. See 2 Chron. 29.25. for ſo was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets.Let the Doctor look once more upon the text, 1 Chron. 28.12, 13. In the 12. verſe it's ſaid, [David gave to Solomon his Son the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit, &c. and 13. verſ. Alſo for the courſes of the Prieſts, and the Levites, and all the work of the ſervice of the houſe of the Lord.] If the Doctor ſaw not this, he was negligent, for I pointed to the place; if he ſaw them, he willfully winked againſt the light; reſolv'd belike, to maintain what ever he once ſayes, right or wrong.