date

1818 Feb y 2 Not Paul III.
1818 Feb y 2

Not Paul

III. Doctrine

Ch. Motives to Doctrine

Asceticism I. Table

Under the Mosaic law, to the pleasures of the table asceticism applied itself in two

ways: by the main branch by the pretended interdiction of blood, it prevented

/inhibited/ its votaries from being partakers at any table at which flesh of any

kind, that of fish as well as fowl included, slaughtered in any other way or by any

other hand that of an observer of the Mosaic law in that respect /particular/, was

served up; by so many particular branches it interdicted as well at /not less at/

their own as /than/ at other tables the use of sundry kinds of flesh in no small

variety, and amongst these several the loss of /abstinence from/ which would either

on the account of sensual gratification, or on the account of economy /cheapness/ be

no inconsiderable loss. (1)

To fasting however—to a temporary abstinence from the pleasure, this [...?], to this

abstinence—coupled with a proportionable and reasonable sufferance of the

corresponding pains, he has not objection—to an exercise of this kind—provided it

have a good object and a good probably issue he has no objection. Of this object and

the care that belongs to it a view may be had under the next succeeding head. It is

that the exercise may have had for its cause and have for its effect, those

meditations of which he himself will be /have been/ the subject, and by which the

purposes of his ambition will be served. For the purpose of this exercise we shall

see him inviting the wife /wives/ to separate herself /themselves/ from her husband

at bed as well as board.†

† I. Cor. vii. [7.]

MS ‘6.’ Defraud not one the other’ (i.e. husbands and wives in respect of

conjugal rights) ‘except { it be} wuth consent for a time, that

ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer;’

Note (a)

(1)  Enumerate them.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1817 Dec 29 Not Paul III. Doctrine]
    Description: 1817 Dec 29

    Not Paul

    III. Doctrine

    Ch. Asceticism

    §.2. Positive proof

    Fasting: here Mosaic law abrogation pronounced

     If he who is guilty of any one part is guilty of the whole

    law He who by his authority abolishes any one part by the same authority abolishes

    the whole.

     N.B. By Eating with the Gentiles, if with the blood [...?]

    the skins were [...?] the law would be violated.

    §. Proof positive from discourse continued—

    §§. Fasting scorned—Occasion hence taken to declare the utter

    abolition of the Mosaic law.

    Fasting.—In Matthew ix. |^^^| soon after he has been

    represented as sitting down at the house of Martha on the occasion on which the

    conversion and election of that apostle is declared as sitting down in her house at

    meat with publicans and sinners, come to him according to Saint Matthew certain

    disciples of John the Baptist, and starting /in regard/ the subject of fasting put

    the question to him (v. 14) ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples

    fast not?’

    Matt. ix. 9 to 17.

    Here Note well the answer. ‘No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment:

    for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made

    worse.’ Neither (continues he) do men put new wine into new bottles; else the bottles

    break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into

    new bottles, and both are preserved.’

    Here then for the illustration of the same doctrine we have two emblems—and by means

    of them two parables: the first brought the doctrine but half the way; the other

    /last/ brought it to its consummation /consummated it/.

    The old garment (who does not now see it?) was the Mosaic law: seeking as John did

    to give it perfection to it by asceticism by abstinence by abstaining /abstinence/

    from wine, from savoury food—from all food was but putting so many patches upon this

    old garment: but of itself by such patching it is thus made worse. Thus far and by

    the help of /means of/ this parable that which is bad—that alone is brought to

    view.
  • Title: [1818 Feb. 2 Not Paul III. Doctrine]
    Description: 1818 Feb. 2

    Not Paul

    III. Doctrine

    Ch. Motives to Doctrine

    Asceticism I. Table

    For non-asceticism as to meals &c. see Rom. Ch. xiv. passim. I. Cor. vi. 13.

    Mem. The Marginals of this not yet copied 23 d Jan y 1819.

    Ch. or §. Paul’s motives for the non-application of asceticism to the pleasures of

    the table.

    By Paul, asceticism as hath been /will be/ seen was employed /applied/ in the way of

    interdiction of /to/ the pleasures of the bed. Bu the same Paul asceticism was not

    employed /applied/ in the way of interdiction to the pleasures of the table. In this

    there was no inconsistency; nothing in either instance /case/ but what was

    subservient to his own worldly /grand/ purposes to his own ambitious schemes of

    worldly dominion under the guise /cloak/ of spiritual service.

    To this purpose it was still more necessary that in its application /in reference/

    to the pleasures of the table asceticism should be excluded, than that in its

    application /reference/ to the pleasures of the bed it should be applied

    /proscribed/. To the purpose of his own selfish /self-regarding/ /personal/ ambition

    still more essentially than to the purpose of the religion of Jesus it was material

    /necessary/ that all faith in /all observance of/ the Mosaic law should be extinct:

    necessary both as calling men[?] off in the character of a rival pursuit /object/

    from that by /on/ the engaging them in which the success of his own scheme depended;

    and as precluding his disciples if /while/ still hampered by that yoke from engaging

    in that free and universal converse on which the encrease of their numbers

    /opportunity of gaining converts/ materially depended.
  • Title: [1817 Dec r 29 Not Paul III]
    Description: 1817 Dec r 29

    Not Paul

    III. Doctrine

    Ch. Asceticism

    §. Positive proof

    Fasting

    Besides the general condemnation here passed /put/ upon the Mosaic law with that

    asceticism which constituted one of its characteristic /lead/ features, note here two

    other things more particular in their extent.

    One is the difference or at least one grand difference between the system of John

    and the improved system of Jesus: by the one asceticism /by the one/ strained still

    tighter than before: by the other, burst /broken up/, and cast out /into the [...?]/.

    The other is the express and particular manner in which not only elsewhere but here

    as well as elsewhere that branch of asceticism which consists in abstinence from food

    is reprobated /condemned/.

    The first is matter of history: the last applies to present practice. By Jesus this

    /all such/ foolery stands /was scorned and/ condemned—by us professing all the while

    such is our impudence to do the words of Jesus, this same foolery continues to be

    practiced. Yes Practiced—by Protestants indeed not on all occasions nor on common

    occasions. No: it is reserved for great occasions: when at this price assistance

    against our enemies is to be purchased of the God battles: then it is that victory is

    obtained /secured/ not by the fulness of the muster-roll, but by the emptiness of the

    stomach.

    In no point on no ground is Jesus—our Jesus as we call him—ever good enough for us:

    still on every point must we be better than he. By Jesus the /Phariseeship with its

    /with its asceticism, its supererogation, its hypocrisy, its pride// hypocrisy of the

    Pharisees is continuously condemned: by us it is held in honour, and every where

    either in practice or in pretence, or in both pursued and imitated.