righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, must always and in everybody occupy the place in the human heart, and conscience, and soul.

NOTE.-Bishop Davenant thus ably and clearly comments on verses 16, 17.

"Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

The proposition to be confirmed, as is manifest from verse 8, was this: In the business of salvation, neither philosophical speculations, nor Mosaical ceremonies, nor any traditions of human invention are to be received; but the doctrine of the Gospel alone is abundantly sufficient for the salvation of every believer. This is proved first, from the excellence of Christ our Saviour and Teacher (verse 9). Secondly, from the perfection which we obtain in Christ alone; as also from the office of Christ (verse 10). Thirdly, from the benefits which Christ, by his Spirit and his death, confers upon us (verses 11, 12, &c.). And the spiritual benefits are, circumcision (i. e. regeneration), remission of sins, the blotting out the handwriting of the law, and the spoiling of all our enemies. Since we obtain all these benefits by Christ, this conclusion admirably follows, "Let no man, therefore, judge you," &c.

We come now, then, to the fourth and last part of this chapter, viz. the conclusion or inference arising from the preceding argument which consists of three particulars, according to the three kinds of impostures which the Apostle in the eighth verse advised us to beware of; for against all these respectively he draws the conclusion:

1. Against the Mosaic ceremonies, which were urged by the Judaizers (verses 16, 17).

2. Against curious and superstitious doctrines about angels, which were propounded by philosophisers (verses 18, 19).

3. Against rites and human traditions, which were devised by doting men (verse 20), &c.

Let us begin with the Mosaic ceremonies; against which he places a conclusion in verse 16, and annexes the reason of the conclusion in verse 17.

"Let no man judge you; i. e. do not regard, fear not, the judgments of those persons who condemn you for neglecting ceremonies, since Christ himself hath delivered you from them. For the seducers assumed to themselves judicial authority, and, as judges, praised and absolved those who observed the Mosaic rites; on the other hand, they condemned as guilty all who neglected these ceremonies. The Apostle, therefore, advised the Colossians, that although they could not avoid these preposterous judgments, they would, nevertheless, cease to regard them. For, as lawyers say, "A sentence given by any but its proper judge is no sentence in law;" but these men had not the power of recalling ceremonies abrogated by Christ, and of imposing them as necessary to salvation upon Christians, who were now delivered from this yoke by the death of Christ : "Let no man, therefore, judge you," i. e. acknowledge no man to have this power.

:

"In meat or in drink." He instances certain particular rites, in the observance of which the Jews placed a great part of their holiness; but since there is a like reason for those which are here named by the apostle, and for all others, he would have us understand that all were abrogated together. As to meats it is certain from Levit. xi. that there was a distinction of meats to the Jews under a precept, so that by virtue of the Divine appointment they were compelled to abstain from some. In drink, also, they had their rites and observances for they who wished to be accounted more holy, were accustomed to abstain from wine and all manner of strong drink; as we see among the Nazarites (Numb. vi. 3), and in the mother of Samson (Judg. xiii. 4). If any one also should drink out of a cup to which there was not a cover, he was considered unclean (Numb. xix. 15). These, and other things of this kind, the apostle concluded were of no importance to salvation, nor were Christians to be condemned for the neglect thereof.

"Or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." With the Jewish abstinence from meats he joins the observation of stated times. But the Jews had many festivals, as you may read in Levit. xxiii. and Exod. xxiii. &c.

It was necessary to celebrate some yearly; as the feasts of the Passover, of Pentecost, and of Tabernacles: some at the beginning of every month; as of the new moons (Numb. xxviii.) : some every seven years; as of the sabbaths. All these are noticed by the apostle in this place; from these he wished a judgment to be formed respecting the rest. But what he says in part of an holy day, some explain in regard of an holy day; some of holy days by turns; others simply in part of a holy day, i.e. on account of some part of a festival being violated; for some festivals lasted many days, and with many ceremonies. All these no one was permitted to violate in any part; but the apostle, on the contrary, concludes that no one is necessarily to be observed in any part. This, therefore, is the sense of the apostle's conclusion; namely, that Christians are not to be condemned as though they were transgressors of the divine law, or guilty of the violation of conscience, because from henceforth they did not abstain from meat or drink forbidden by the ceremonial law, or because they did not observe the feasts enjoined by the same law, whatever false apostles had superstitiously determined to the contrary. From these things the following observations arise :~

1. It is the peculiar character of seducers to load the consciences of men with ceremonies, as things necessary to salvation, and to condemn them for the omission thereof; thus did the false apostles heretofore; thus do false Catholics of the present day, who make the chief worship of God consist in the observance of their traditions, and the omission of the same to be the damnable guilt of eternal death. A grave author, Gerson, Chancellor of Paris, continually complains of this tyranny of the popish prelates, and torturing of consciences. Part 3, De vitâ spirit. anim. lect. 4, he says, "They abuse their power, who wish whatever they ordain to have force by an obligation to eternal punishment." And a little after: "No law is to be enacted as necessary to eternal salvation, which is not in some degree after the Divine law."

2. It is the duty of Christians, when ceremonial rites are imposed upon them under the plea of necessity, of righteousness, or of merit, to reject the same, and to despise those masters of ceremonies; for so the apostle directs, both in this place and in Gal. v. 1, "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty

wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage." But those are entangled with the yoke of bondage upon whom any ceremonies whatever are imposed as necessary, and meritorious, and saving. As, therefore, Christian modesty enjoins us to obey prelates, when they prescribe decorous rites for the sake of order; so Christian liberty enjoins us to withstand the same when they obtrude their traditions under the plea of worship, or of necessity for salvation. For here that saying of Cyprian, De hæret. baptizandis, ought to have weight, "It is dangerous for any one to surrender his right in Divine things."

3. Distinction of meats or of days is not now to be retained by Christians upon the opinion of necessity, of holiness, of righteousness, or merit. "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink," &c. (Rom xiv. 17). "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat," &c. (1 Cor. x. 25). "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" (Gal. iv. 10). 'Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected if it be received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. iv. 4). "Meats have not profited them that have been exercised therein" (Heb. xiii. 9). Well spake Prosper, De vitâ contempl. lib. 3, cap. 19, "It is a miserable thing to condemn others for receiving meat or drink, or to arrogate sanctity to ourselves for abstinence." And Tertullian, De cib. Judiac, "Evangelical liberty has taken away the observances of meats. The true and pure meat is a conscience undefiled."

Here, therefore, we blame a double error of the papists. First, in this they grievously err, and approach very near the Tatians and Manichæans, because they forbid certain meats at certain times, on the ground that they think them more cursed and less holy than others. For when they would assign a reason why it is not lawful to eat flesh at the time of fasting, although it is permitted to feed upon fish, they pretend that the earth is cursed by God, and, as a consequence, all earthly animals are so; that the water, with the fish, was not put under the curse; that Christ was accustomed to eat fish, not flesh; by which arguments they affirm that they believe fishes to be in themselves more holy and clean than flesh. Secondly, they further err in this, that they place the merit of I know not what extraordinary perfection in abstinence from meat: whence it comes to pass that to the Carthusian monks, who would be

accounted more perfect and holy than the rest, the use of flesh is forbidden for ever, and to all others during Lent. That remark of Augustine, Serm. de tempore 157, may fitly be brought against them: "There are certain observers of Lent more delicate than religious; seeking rather new delicacies, than chastising old lusts. They shudder at the vessels in which flesh is cooked, as though these were unclean; but they dread not the luxury of the appetite and gluttony." For if we look into the Schoolmen, they place the whole argument of ecclesiastical fasting in a choice and difference of meats, not in abstinence and moderation. Hence Hales (part iv. quæst. 28, memb. 3, art. 2), contends, that we are to abstain in the time of fasting not so much from quantity as from quality; for he asserts, that during the time of fasting, it is a greater sin to eat a little flesh than to devour much fish. And Durandus, lib. 4, dist. 7, quæst. 4, writes, "That a popish fast is not broken by one meal, however great, provided they abstain from the meats prohibited," i. e. from flesh, eggs, and milk. Hence it comes to pass that the papists feel no scruple to taste wine or fish, however delicate, during Lent; or figs, dates, and almost all other articles which are accounted delicacies, provided they religiously take care not to eat flesh. No wonder fasts are so pleasing to them to whom it is holiness to fast in this manner.

But now let us meet certain doubts, which may arise from this apostolic doctrine concerning the abrogated difference of meats and days :

1. It is objected that Christian magistrates have commanded abstinence from meats at certain times; and on this account those who violate this command are criminal, and may be judged: therefore, Christians are judged on account of meats; which seems to oppose the apostolic conclusion, "Let no man, therefore, judge you," &c.

It is to be answered, first, that the apostle blames those who introduce a difference of meats for the cause of sanctity; viz. that so they may condemn as transgressors of the law those who do not observe this choice of meats: but he blames not those who decide that, for the sake of public utility, the one may be taken at this time, or the other at that; so that they may offer no scruple to men's consciences, as if it were a thing unlawful in itself to do otherwise. Secondly, we say that the magistrates