The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 5
Sect. 5. The full importance of the words, verſ. 22. (he ſays) is this, That when thoſe abſtinencies are impoſed, &c.
COncerning the ſenſe of thoſe words, p. 107. n. 1.foreign; I know no reaſon, why the Dr. ſhould forſake the Interpretation of almoſt all Interpreters, unleſs becauſe he loves to be ſingular: He ſays, the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of the meats, but of the commands of abſtaining; I granted this might be the ſenſe, but yet it might well be rendered, as our Tranſlation, and all (but the Doctor) do; [Which all are to periſh with the uſing;] that is, [That now being out-dated, they periſh without any Spiritual advantage.] To this he anſwers: p. 109. n. 4.[This is ſure very ſhort, it being evident, that the impoſing theſe out-dated obſervances, is not onelyonly, not advantageous, but hurtful, deadly, destructive.] But, firſt, the Doctor varies the queſtion; it is not ſpoken of impoſing them, by falſe Teachers, but of the Ordinances, or Abſtinencies themſelves, [which all are to periſh with the uſing,] as uſed by the Coloſſians, whom they had ſeduced. 2. He that ſayes, they were to periſh in the uſing, does not exclude their hurtfulneſs, even to eternal deſtruction; there may be (as oft there is,) a foreign, leſs ſpoken, and more intended: ſo Saint Auſtins words cited by him import. But as for Saint Ambroſe, he reads the text, Quae ſunt ad corruptelam ipſo uſu, as ours do: and hath theſe words upon it, Quia praecepta & doctrinae, no… Dei, ſed hominum ſunt, in quibus vana ſpes eſt. And again; Hinc ſe ſapientiae rationem habere putant, quia traditioni humanae, nomen Religionis applicant, ut religio appelletur cum fit ſacrilegium: quia quod contra Authorem eſt, ſacrilega mente inventum eſt: Ambr. in textum. Where theſe things are obſervable, firſt, that he reads, foreign, corruptelam; corruption, not deſtruction: 2. foreign, he renders, ipſo uſu. 3. Gives the reaſon why thoſe abſtinences loſe their vertue, which formerly they had, becauſe they are not the precepts and doctrines of God, but of men, in whom hope is vain. 4. That he makes the crime to be, becauſe they made them parts of Religion, or Worſhip, which is not Religion, but Sacriledge; and gives the reaſon, becauſe they are invented by a Sacrilegious mind (by men) againſt the Authority of God. And now I hope, the Doctor will never cite Ambroſe more, in this point. He knows Hierome, and the Greek Commentators take the words in our ſenſe, referring the words to ſomething underſtood, viz. meats, which are in interium ipſo uſu: So the vulg. So Eſtius, and all Papiſts that I have ſeen, Will-wor. ſ. 5.beſides all our reformed Divines. [That ſenſe (ſays he) is ſufficiently improbable, becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of the meat, but of the commands of abstaining:] And this ſuppoſition of his is as ſufficiently improbable; p. 109. n. 3.becauſe (as himſelf ſays,) [The antecedent to, foreign, all which, is Touch not, Taste not, &c.] But then the words muſt be meant, not of doctrines or commands, (for they can in no good ſenſe be ſaid, to periſh with the uſing, as we read; or are to deſtruction, by the abuſing, as he reads) but of the abſtinences themſelves commanded, or as uſed or practiſed by the Coloſſians; they being now out-dated, periſh in the uſing; and are destructive to them that make them neceſſary parts of Worſhip and therein abuſe them: But that foreign, the abuſe, ſhould belong to the the Doctrines of abſtinence, can be no good ſenſe; which Doctrines of abſtinence, are to deſtruction, by the abuſe. But this is good; which abſtinences are to deſtruction, by the abuſe, viz. of an ordinance, ſome time ſince profitable, as a part of Worſhip: but now abuſively continued to that end. Beſides, the Doctor ſayes, [The words, Touch not, &c. denote other abſtinencies, beſides that of meats, particularly, that of marriage.] But, theſe are the Doctors ſecond thoughts: for in his former Tract of Will-worſhip, he ſaw not this of marriage; or the Gnoſticks, that after prohibited marriage as abominable: Humane out-dated Judaical Conſtitutions. Will-wor. ſ. 14.So [Touch not, &c. noting thereby thoſe doctrines which affirm men obliged to faſting, or abstinence from ſuch or ſuch meats; (the word foreign, to touch, ſignifying to eat, &c.] Not a word of abſtinence from marriage) then thought of; though, foreign, might ſignifie, to marry; as I ſaid above. 2. Let marriage be taken in with meats (if that will pleaſe him) yet as the ſpeech would be improper, to ſay, marriage periſhes in the uſing; (as he objects to us) ſo alſo to ſay, marriage periſhes by the abuſe; If he ſay, he reads thus which (abſtinence from marriage) is to deſtruction by the abſue: So it might be ſaid of any other gift of God; and then the Apoſtle ſayes little to the purpoſe, in the particular caſe; any creature abuſed, is to deſtruction. But the Apoſtie here ſpeaks of Ordinances of God, abstinences under precept lately; (but ſo was never abſtinence from marriage,) but now uſed, or abuſed to a wrong end, being aboliſhed by Chriſt: Now wherein that abuſe conſiſted, comes next to be enquired.
The Doctor placed it in this onelyonly, n. 5.[That thoſe abſtinences were impoſed as Divine precepts, this is an abuſe of them; (otherwiſe innocent,) &c.] To which I ſaid, 1. There is little or nothing in the text, to import this: He replies (ſomething angerly) [what will, with him, be accounted great I know not; but ſomething there is, to incline it this way; 1. The word foreign, verſ. 20. foreign and foreign, doctrines ſignifie thoſe things, which are taught, as from God. Matth. 15.9. as formerly hath been ſhewed, &c.] This indeed was aſſerted before, p. 3. n. 1. but not proved at all; and here it is again aſſerted more largely without any convincing proof: yet he ſays, [It's evident from the form of ſpeech; Col. 2.22. The words are, After the Commandments, and doctrines of men: as both one.In vain do they Worſhip me, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men; where the Commandments of men, are taught, not as ſuch, but as doctrines of God.] It's much to ſight, with what eyes men look upon objects. To me and others the contrary rather appears; For, firſt, if I might play the Critick a little, I would ſay, there is not in the text to be found, the word (for:) The words are thus; teaching doctrines, the Commandments of men: that is, doctrines which are meerly the Comandments of men: 2. The word foreign, does no where that I know, ſignifie [to teach things to be Divine precepts, which are not:] The word (ſayes the learned Profeſſor) ſignifies, D. Dav. in locum.[teneri, vel abſtringi dogmatib. magiſtrorū noſtrorum; as the Academicks were bound to receīve the dogmata, the Doctrines or opinions of Plato, the Peripateticks of Ariſtotle, &c.] But ſure they did not teach or impoſe their doctrines, as Commandments of God. 3. The very text produced confutes the gloſs; where the doctrines of the Phariſes, are called the Commandments of men; and oppoſed to the Commandments of God verſ. 3, 6. Yea the Phariſees themſelves, called them, the Traditions of the Elders, verſ. 2. &c. This he would thus evade: [They were ſo really, Commandments of men, p. 110. n. 6.yet were by falſe Treachers impoſed, as Commands of God, and therein their falſe teaching conſiſted.] This might be true of ſome falſe teachers, that preached up the Ceremonial Law, after it was aboliſhed, as ſtill obliging by divine precept; but there was no colour for the Phariſees, to pretend to a divine precept in their new Traditions; being known not to be commanded by God, in the Jewiſh Law; and therefore they call'd them onelyonly, Traditions of the Elders: They being men of great repute, for knowledge and piety, did invent, and then by their own example, commend ſome new wayes of worſhipping God, and then by their Authority, they had got in their Diſciples hearts, as pious and devout men, did lay their own doctrines upon them; and they ſtooped and were ſubjected to them. They did not therefore ſo much as pretend them to be the Will and Commandments of God, (ſure our Saviour would not have been ſilent, in ſuch a blaſphemy) but onelyonly that they would be pleaſing and acceptable to God, as being more then he commanded; which is the opinion of all formal Hypocrites, in their Will-worſhip. And I cannot but wonder, the Doctor ſhould hold our, that they pretended their Doctrines to be Divine precepts, when he makes them differ from the Karraim, in this, that they tranſcended the Law, in their Worſhip; in uncommanded Worſhip. Now to ſay, their Worſhip or doctrines of Worſhip, were Divine precepts, was to derogate from that height of excellency, which themſelves (and the Doctor) conceited to be in them. Let him confider it,
But to convince him the more, I could tell him what Calvins judgement was of that text, Matt. 15.9. Omnes foreign, hic damnari minimè dubium eſt: but the Doctor will eaſily ſlight his judgement. I ſhall therefore give him the gloſs of a learned Papiſt, whom he more regards. It is, Tolet on Luc. 11. Annotat. 84. [The Prieſts had brought in many novel things, though Moſes had with great terrour threatned them not to adde any thing: of which number of additions, were thoſe waſhings. There was a double fault. 1. The innovation it ſelf, was no ſlight fault, &c. 2. Another was their Superstition. The Phariſees had put in thoſe waſhings, not for any natural or civil cleanlineſs, but as pertaining to Religion: who ſo did contemn them, were judged to offend againſt Gods Worſhip: and whoſo did obſerve them, ſeemed chiefly to regard Gods Worſhip in them. But this was in no wiſe lawful, &c. for Chriſt rejected theſe waſhings as ſuperſtitious, Mark 7. In vain do they Worſhip me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men. i. e. ſuch things as men ſet up of themſelves againſt the Commandment of God.] Not, (as the Doctor) [ſuch things which though they were the doctrines and commandments of men, yet were impoſed, as Commandments of God] Judge, Reader, which is the better Interpreter.
But ſuppoſing (not yielding) they did hold them out as Divine precepts (that I ſaid, was an abuſe of them:) yet the fault might be, they made them parts of Worſhip: that would make them more deſtructive: And this our Saviour particularly chargeth upon the Phariſees, [In vain do they Worſhip me.] They made their Traditions, to be parts of Worſhip: I asked, [whether placing Worſhip, in the obſervation of thoſe ordinances, though not impoſed as Gods Commands, were not an abuſe of them, to deſtruction?] The Doctor anſwers (as a man amuſed) by asking me; p. 111. n. 8.[What I mean by Worſhip? if ſuch (Worſhip) as a man may juſtly preſcribe or practice; ceremonies perfectly lawful; or more, what is ſure to be accepted, &c. 'tis certain, it were no abuſe.] Here Reader, obſerve 1. That the Doctor grants, a man may juſtly preſcribe, and then practiſe his own preſcribed Worſhip. 2. That he calls Ceremonies, Worſhip, which hitherto he call'd onelyonly Circumſtances of Worſhip. But he knows, I mean it of Worſhip; what then? [If he mean the commanded Worſhip of God, then his queſtion implies a contradiction; for whatſoever the Worſhip of God is placed in, that is taught, as a command of God, or elſe it were not Gods preſcribed Worſhip, which yet it is ſuppoſed to be.] I mean it not of commanded Worſhip, (it were ridiculous indeed, to ask ſuch a queſtion) but of uncommanded Worſhip, deviſed of his own will, againſt the will of God: may not a man deviſe falſe Worſhip, and yet not pretend it to be impoſed by Divine precept? Surely Papiſts do ſo, in many of their Will-worſhips; holding them our, not as Divine commands, but as things very pleaſing to God, and rewardable by him, &c. Upon this my queſtion falls; to which he ſayes nothing, but gives as ſtrange a reaſon; [for whatſoever the Worſhip of God is placed in, that is taught as a command of God, elſe it were not Gods preſcribed Worſhip] Which is proved falſe by the former inſtance; and begs the queſtion, That no man places Worſhip in any thing, but he muſt teach it, as a Command of God; which I believe the Doctor will contradict by his own practice; placing the Worſhip of God in ſome things, and yet denying it to be a Command of God. I ſhall take another inſtance, from himſelf in the next number; n. 9. He (falſly) ſuppoſes abſtinence from marriage to be meant in Col. 2.23. See p. 107. n. 3. n. 10.[It is certain abſtinence from marriage may be lawfully practiſed, by him that can bear it, all the error is in impoſing it on others, &c.] Suppoſe now, a man does not impoſe it upon others, yet places the Worſhip of God in it, to Worſhip God by it, as Papiſts do; (whether the Doctor do ſo, we ſhall hear anon) I would ask, whether this be not an error, to place Worſhip in that, which God doth not command? Whether Col. 2.23. be a [ſetting down the abuſe, and defining wherein it conſiſts] or no, ſhall be tryed hereafter.