The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 6
Sect. 6. Yet let us hear wherein the Doctor places the danger, &c.
WHat ever is repeated in this Section, by the Doctor, is fully anſwered in the laſt; and the Doctors notion, I ſtill ſay, is ſingular and his own, [That the falſe teachers held out their doctrines as Commandments of God;] which no Interpreters of the place, do touch upon: I ſhall onelyonly obſerve, what Eſtius notes upon the text, anſwering this queſtion; [Seeing the Apoſtle ſpeaks here of Legal Rites, inſtituted by God, how doth he call them the precepts and doctrines of men? which in the Scripture are taken in the evil ſenſe, as alſo are the Traditions of men, viz. thoſe things which are invented and delivered, by an humane ſenſe and ſpirit.] He gives divers anſwers. 1. [Some took the place to be meant of the ſuperſtitious precepts of the Gentile Philoſophy, or Simonian School (ſo did the Doctor p. 110. n 5. at leaſt in part.) But this expoſition is refuted; For thoſe precepts were Jewiſh, Touch not, &c. as thoſe afore, Let no man judge you in meat or drink: which without doubt was ſpoken of Jewiſh obſervations. 2. Others anſwer thus: Thoſe Inſtitutions of the Moſaical law, being impoſed to foretell Chriſt to come, did now pertain no longer to the Law of God, but to the doctrines and precepts of men; who teach them ſtill to be obſerved. So Chryſoſt. Theophyl. and others. 3. The Greek Interpreters give another, That the Apoſtle hath reſpect to the humane Inſtitutions and Traditions of the Phariſees, mixt with the Precepts of God; For the Apoſtle ſays not only touch not, but handle not; which becauſe it differs from the former, ſeemes to be referred to ſome other things, the touching whereof, was forbidden, not by the law, but by the tradition of men.] And to this laſt he rather inclines. But he never took the word, foreign, to ſignifie things impoſed as commands of God; but as the commands of men: Cur ſinitis vos regi praeceptis, & doctrinis humanis: As touch not, &c. But if the Doctor had conſidered my queſtion, [what it was they impoſed by thoſe ordinances and doctrines? was it not a way of worſhipping God, by thoſe *Abſtinences and falſe worſhips, p. 111. n. 10. They commended them as acts of voluntary worſhip, and ſo to be acceptable to God. p. 123. n. 3.Abſtinences, touch not, &c.] He would have given an anſwer, or an evaſion; and have ſaid, yea, or no: If he ſhould ſay no, they did not impoſe thoſe Abstinences as a way of Worſhip, or as worſhip, the text would confute him; for all thoſe legal abſtinences, were parts of worſhip to the Jewes, which theſe falſe teachers would have ſo continued. If he ſhould ſay, yea, they did ſo impoſe them; then it's evident, that though they might impoſe them as Divine Commands, yet the main crime would be, their ſetting up, or continuing a worſhip of God, which Chriſt had abrogated: therefore the Doctor overlookt it, and ſaid nothing. The danger therefore was, that they were but Commandments and Doctrines of men, (or if held out as Gods) placing the worſhip of God in thoſe obſervances, which either he never commanded, or were now out-dated: Yet the Doctor is at his old fence; p. 113. n. 6.[If they placed worſhip in them, in this ſenſe, that they did or taught them as parts of Gods commanded worſhip, 'tis the very thing, I placed the danger in: If they delivered them as their own doctrines, they did not then place any part of Gods commanded worſhip in them.] Enough hath been ſaid to this in the former Section: I onelyonly ask, what makes the word (commanded) here? Let him propound it thus, as I did; If they placed worſhip in them, (whether commanded or not commanded, is not material,) was there no danger and deſtructiveneſs in them for that? But the ſecond part is falſe (upon a falſe ſuppoſition) that a man cannot place worſhip in things, but he muſt teach them as commanded by God. But here's one thing new; [If they taught them as ſuch things, which though not commanded by God, would yet be acceptable to him ſtill, after aboliſht by Chriſt, then they taught that which had no truth in it, for ſuch kindes of abſtinencies, are not now valued by God.] To which I ſay, 1. This will recoil upon himſelf; For he hath ſaid, the danger was onelyonly that they taught them as Commandments of God, (which otherwiſe had been innocent things) in ſect. 5. of VVill-wor. but now he ſayes, they had taught that which had no truth in it, though they taught them as ſuch things, as would be acceptable to God, though not commanded by him. And is it no crime, to teach untruths? 2. It falls on him once more; For he doth teach many things (his will-worſhip) to be acceptable to God, which he hath not commanded; yea, the more acceptable becauſe not commanded: then, he teaches that which hath no truth in it; for ſuch abſtinences of worſhip are not now *But more real acts of ſelf-denial, mortifying of lusts, ſet up in their stead, as here he ſayes: yet he highly values thoſe very abſtinences: as after, Infra pag. 129. n. 8. See p. 119. n. 15.valued by God, who will be worſhipped with his own commanded Worſhip. If he will ſay, he does not make them worſhip, that ſhall be tried hereafter.