to partake of the National Sacrifices which were common to the whole Nation But no Nation however beside the Jews pretended to be the peculiar People who were favour'd with the immediate Patronage of the supreme Being They could not therefore impose Incorporation into themselves as a Condition of Admission into the new Peculium on other Nations besides themselves tho' their Circumcision had been design'd as a Right of Incorporation Their Circumcision therefore not being impos'd as a Condition of the Peculium had been as Innocent as that of the Jews was when observ'd only by their own Nation and not impos'd on others as a Condition requisite to qualify them for the Spiritual Favours of the Peculium Upon those terms the Jews themselves were permitted the use of it whilst they Commnnicated with the Uncircumcis'd Gentiles in the Offices of the Christian Religion Much less could it be Condemned in other Nations who never impos'd it farther than their own Nation There was therefore neither parity of Reason nor sufficient Consent of Nations to prove the Jewish Circumcision lawful now tho' we should on those Accounts grant that Instrumental Musick were so BUT Bloody Sacrifices our Adversary XII No Bloody Sacrifices whatsoever were fit for the Design of the Christian Sacrifices conceives might at least pretend to them Not certainly so as to unite all Nations into one Body which was the true Design of our Evangelical Eucharistical Sacrifices The Jewish Sacrifices none were capable of but one only Nation that of the Jews The same was the Case of many others of the publick National Sacrifices None were indeed suppos'd to have a Right in them but the Nation for whose use they were originally Instituted Some were as severe as the Jews themselves to make it Piacular and Capital if one of another Nation did but come into that part of their Temples where the publick Sacrifices were Offered So it appears that it was only the remissness of their Discipline above that of the Jews that made them allow others that were not of their Nation to partake of their publick Sacrifices Augustus when he was in Egypt Suet. Aug. c. 93. would take no notice of Apis and commended his Grandson Caius because he would not Pray at Jerusalem The like was the Practice of Hadrian who pretended Spartian Adri. to an Inquisitiveness into all things and to be a severe Observer of Discipline And it was a Favour usually desir'd from the Senate that other Nations might have leave to Offer their Donaries at the Roman-Altars These are sufficient Evidences of what was generally taken for the Rule which is the only thing to be regarded in this Reasoning It is true the Jews allow'd publick Sacrifices for the Persian Kings and the Roman Emperours But not so as to suffer any Heathens to partake in them Yet even this was blamed by the strictest Pretenders to the Observation of the Law among them the Galileans and the Zealots Tho' otherwise if any other Nation could admit others to their National Sacrifices the Jews had more reason to do so They by their own Confession Worshipped a God to whom all other Nations ought Duty as well as themselves which other Nations did not pretend concerning their own Deities There was therefore no Sacrifice of this kind that all Nations with their National distinctives could pretend an equal Right to How could they therefore unite all Nations into one Body as it was the Design of our Christian Religion to unite them None of them pretended to a Right to be confirmed in Heaven besides that of the Jews which yet could not unite all Nations whilst it was believed to be the Right of one only Nation There were no Bloody Sacrifices in the World which being received into one Place gave a Right to all other Sacrifices in the World I do not now insist on what Porphyry has Porphyry de Abst. endeavour'd to prove at large that the first Sacrifices received among the Nations were not Bloody but Innocent and such as were perfectly agreeable with his Pythagorean Notions which were for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not either know or regard the most ancient Example of Abel to the contrary However he has said very considerable things for it from the Histories of the Heathens That is enough to disprove that sort at least of Sacrifices from being a Tradition of the Law of Nations And the Reputation of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had then prevail'd not only in those Cities which had submitted to Pythagorean Legislators but also among the Romans themselves I am apt to think this was the Reason why so many of the good Emperours who affected Felicia Tempora affected also that their Reigns might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free from the Piaculum of shedding Civil Blood at least of the better Quality But the Pythagorean Doctrines were particularly grateful to the Jewish Essenes who were as I said the best disposed to the Christian Religion and who seem therefore to have been extirpated by an universal Conversion upon the appearance of it They were most addicted to the Mystical sense of the Law which is the Foundation of most of the Reasonings of the New Testament Numenius the Heathen who first joyned the Mystical Interpretation of the Law of Moses with the Heathen Philosophy was a Pythagorean and so was Philo the Jew and the Essenes as the same Philo teaches This alone was sufficient to dispose the Essenes to an aversation to Bloody Sacrifices and to have the better Opinion of the Christian Religion when they understood that by it they could satisfie the Design of the Legislator without them If they could once free themselves thereby from the Obligation of the Bloody Sacrifices required by the Law of Moses there were no other in view that were likely to be substituted instead of them at least by them But the Mystical Interpretations of the Old Testament afforded an easier account of the Change which was to be made by the Gospel and more grateful to the Relish of the Pythagorean Essenes and the Philosophical Asceticks The everlasting Priesthood which was to answer'd by that of the Gospel was suppos'd to be that of Melchizedeck So 't is expresly called by the Psalmist as the Apostle has observed No doubt as granted him by the Mystical Reasonings of those Times His Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Word us'd by Philo concerning him as well as by St. Paul concerning our Saviour was Bread and Wine exactly the same with that of the Gospel The Notion of a Priest implies an Offering by the Reasoning in the Epistle to the Hebrews Heb. viii 3. And no other thing but Bread and Wine is mentioned in the Story of Melchizedeck that can be called an Offering Our Eucharist therefore must by this Reasoning be the everlasting Offering or Sacrifice relating to his everlasting Priest-hood The rather because there is a Bread from Heaven mentioned also in the
to those which devided the Jews and Christians in the Apostolical Age They very well know that our present Dispute is wholly between Christians and has no relation to the Obligation of the Mosaick Law in any Sense It is very true that the Literal Sense of the Mosaick Law usually related to External Sensible Things and the Mystical to Things Insensible and Spiritual And the Mystical Sense being the Spiritual may give the occasion why our Adversaries fancy that the Mystical Sense should always relate to Spiritual Things But it is not being oppos'd to Sensible or Bodily but Literal shews plainly that the things concern'd in the Literal Sense are not consider'd in this Reasoning as Sensible and Corporeal And on the other side in the Reasonings of the New Testament the Evangelical Institutions even in this World are all suppos'd to belong to the Spiritual Sense of the old Law And for that very Reason it is inferr'd that they were principally regarded by God because the mystical Sense of the Law was more principally intended by him than the Literal The whole Evangelical Institution is in the same Reasoning suppos'd to be the Pattern shewed to Moses in the Mount in Imitation of which the Tabernacle was to be made And this in order to the proving that the Evangelical Institutions were to be Eternal because the Ideal Patterns of things were in the Platonick way of Reasoning suppos'd to be so This Eternity concern'd in this Dispute can only be meant of that which was to last as long as this World so the everlasting Hills Gen. xlix 26. And the everlasting Mountains Hab. iii. 6. And the Land of Canaan is said to be given for an everlasting Possession Gen. xvii 8. xlviii 4. For in this Sense the Everlastingness of the Gospel is oppos'd to the Duration of the Law which was even in this Life to give way to a more lasting Establishment But it is certain that those very Institutions of the Gospel which have succeeded the abrogated Institutions of the Law and which are therefore suppos'd to be Spiritual in this Sense as Spiritual is oppos'd to the Literal Sense of the Law are notwithstanding themselves Sensible and Corporeal So is Baptism which has succeeded in the Place of the abrogated Circumcision of the Letter So also is our Eucharistical Sacrifice which now answers the abrogated Bloody Sacrifices These therefore must be suppos'd to be Spiritual in this Sense of the Word notwithstanding their being Sensible and Corporeal Our Adversaries therefore do certainly mistake the meaning of this Reasoning when they hence gather that any Observations are contrary to the Spiritual Nature of the Gospel on that account alone because they are Sensible and Corporeal BUT tho' Sensible Assistances should XVII Pomp and Magnificence of the external Worship is not inconsistent with the Design of the Gospel not be inconsistent with the Nature of Evangelical Worship yet our Adversaries think at least that Pomp and Magnificence must needs be so One would think by the gradation that their Arguments on this Head were more cogent and convictive but it proves quite the contrary Not one Text can they pretend against the Pomp and Magnificence of the publick Worship of God rather all the appearance of Scripture Reasonings is against them The Worship of the Old Testament was manifestly very Magnificent nor can our Adversaries deny that it was so what have they therefore to say why it ought not to be so still Can they shew any Text of the New Testament against it as a thing that was to cease and to be no more practis'd I know of none they do pretend either in the same or in equivalent Terms Can they then pretend any thing inconsistent with it in the constitution of the Gospel or of the new Peculium These things I have shewn to be the true Originals of the abrogation of what was indeed abrogated in the old Mosaick Law The reasoning of the Old Test as well as the positive Precepts of it rather favour than contradict the Magnificence and Sumptuousness of the publick Solemnities of the divine Worship David would not offer Burnt Offerings unto the Lord his God of that which cost him nothing 2 Sam. xxiv 24. and Malachy makes mean Sacrifices to redound to the contempt of the Religion wherein they were used He makes them to be a polluting God's Altar and interprets the offering them as if the Offerers of them had said The Table of the Lord is contemptible Mal. i. 7. He Expostulates concerning them farther v. 8. Offer it now to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy Person saith the Lord of Hosts Plainly intimating that God did as much expect expensive Sacrifices from those who were able to Offer them and had reason to do so as any of their Governours and would as much resent the contrary as an affront as Governours would mean Presents from such as were able to offer great ones The Reasoning is the very same in Is. xl 16. Lebanon is not sufficient to burn nor the Beasts thereof for a Burnt Offering Arguing for the Magnificence of the Offering from the greatness of the Person to whom it is made And I have already shewn how in the N. T. the Reason even of abrogated Precepts is owned as still obliging as a reason approv'd by God Much more in cases wherein our Adversaries can prove no abrogation such as is this of Instrumental Musick But the divine Authority of the N. T. does also plainly approve the same Reasoning It is a clear instance of it when our Saviour values the poor Widow's Mites as more than the Offerings of the Rich who had cast in greater Sums out of their greater abundance St Mar. xii 43. St. Luke xxi 3. This plainly shews That as God does graciously accept of mean things from those who are able to give no more so he does not excuse them from Magnificence whose Abilities may afford it Our Saviour reasons the same way in the case of the Woman who anointed his Feet with the Alabaster Box of very precious Ointment The same Objection was S. Mat. xxvi 7 c. S. Mark xiv 3. S. Luke vii 36. made then which is made by our Adversaries now that it might have been sold for much and given to the Poor Yet our Saviour commends the seasonableness of the Gift as will as the Gift it self and returns the Woman an honourable Memorial for it wherever his Gospel should be preach'd The Objection would indeed be greater then when the numbers of the Poor were greater and the Abilities of the Christians for Contribution were less than they are now Yet even so our Saviour did not approve of our Adversaries Reason He allow'd a liberality in shewing their respect to the Temple of his Body as a token of what he would also judge commendable if us'd to the material Temples that should afterwards be Consecrated to his Worship And in giveing a precedent for
Legislative Power has to repeal its own Sanctions and on the general account that where the repeal is not express the latter Sanction is to take Place in Case of inconsistency as being the Sense of the Legislative Power at least from that time forwards This could not have been Disputed if the Jews had granted that their own Establishment was design'd only for a time But observing in the Old Testament frequent mention of an everlasting Covenant it was very natural for them to apply it to that of which they were already possess'd and of which their Education had given them so great an Opinion And when this Opinion had obtained it was then very natural for them to gather farther that God had thereby declared that their present Constitution should last for ever and that therefore whosoever should pretend to repeal it either wholly or in any part was for that reason to be presum'd not to be from God because it was in their Opinion so contrary to his former express Declarations against any future Innovation This Mistake therefore the Christians of that Apostolical Age Dispute against They observe in those Writings of the Old Testament express mention not of one alone as the Jews conceiv'd but of two Covenants an old one which then obtained and a new one which was to succeed Gal. iv 24. Heb. viii 6 8. xii 24. upon the abrogation of the first Then they prove that it was only the latter of these that could be intended to be everlasting That the former could not be so because Heb. viii 7. if it had been so there could have been no Place for the latter There could have been no second if the first had lasted for ever Besides because the first Covenant is called Old and that which is Old is ready to vanish away Heb. viii 13. And because the Tabernacle of Moses was made in imitation of another Pattern which had been shew'd him in the Mount This was observ'd as well by Philo as St. Paul Understanding therefore by the Tabernacle the whole Mosaical Dispensation they thence inferr'd that all the efficacy of that was derived from this other latter Dispensation as from that which was Principal in Gods Design tho' latter in Execution and in order of time Hence it followed in this Mystical way of Reasoning which was indeed the properest way of Reasoning in explaining Prophecies that the latter Covenant was to take place of the former and to be taken so far as a Repeal of it as a practice of both of them were mutually inconsistent And this way of Reasoning will suffice for abrogating all that part of the Mosaical Establishment which is supposed to be abrogated in the Reasonings of the N. T. and of the Apostolical Age. I mean with reference to the Design of those Reasonings that is as Impositions on the new Peculium THENCE it appear'd that Circumcision VII Those Particulars were indeed inconsistent which are supposed unlawful in the N. T as a Condition of being reckon'd of the new Peculium that is as impos'd on Gentiles by extraction must necessarily be taken away before it was possible that Gentiles not yet Incorporated into the Jewish Nation could be counted as Foederally Holy according to those new Revelations of the Gospel of which I have already spoken So also it was necessary that the Peculium must no longer depend on the Temple Sacrifices For those were not in the Power of the Apostles nor could they admit whom they pleas'd to them They were perfectly at the disposal of the Jewish Sanhedrin who were profess'd Enemies to our Saviour and would admit no uncircumcis'd Person to partake in them nor could do otherwise whilst they disown'd the new Revelations of the Gospel by the Apostle So also that Ceremonial Holiness of abstaining from certain sorts of Meats could no longer be required in order to the Holiness of the Peculium For those had never been required from any Nation besides that of the Jews and therefore could not be expected from the Gentiles when they were no longer obliged to an Incorporation into the Jewish Nation in order to their being entit'led to the highest Benefits of the Peculium Nor could the Jews insist on these things as requisite for their communicating with the uncircumcised Gentiles in Holy Offices if themselves would partake of the mystical Benefits of the new Peculium on its own Terms Their doing so made the Wall of Partition mention'd by the Apostle and made it impossible for them to coalesce into one Body with the uncircumcis'd as the new Revelation of the Gospel requires It were easy by this Reasoning to account for all the particulars of the old Mosaical Institution that are suppos'd unlawful in the Gospel IF this which I have given be the VIII This inconsistency cannot be pretended in the Case of Instrumental Musick true Original how it came to pass that some Mosaick Rites have been abrogated by the Gospel there will thence follow no pretence for condemning them as universally unlawful now for no other reason but because they were Duties then upon positive as well as upon Moral and universally obliging Reasons All that will follow from this Topick will be That only those Particulars of the Mosaick Institution will be thus affected that are inconsistent with the Gentiles free admission to the highest Priviledges of the new Peculium immediately without Circumcision or Proselytism of Justice and which being admitted would have made that breach of Communion which was principally disputed against by the Apostles and Writers of the Apostolical Age. Those could not be things wherein the uncircumcis'd Gentiles were already agreed as they were in the use of Instrumental Musick in their Sacrifical Hymns and in their publick Solemnities How could that have made a breach between them wherein they did not differ How could that have excluded Gentiles from the new Peculium without submitting to the whole Law of Moses which was already practis'd by the Gentiles before they concerned themselves to know what had been requir'd by Moses How could that have been taken for an Imposition which they had freely taken upon themselves without any regard to the practice of the Jews Then all that Dispute was concerning what might be lawfully impos'd on the Gentiles not concerning what may be lawfully practis'd by the Jews by Nation This is so certain that even the most indisputably abrogated instance of Circumcision and the Temple Sacrifices were used by the Apostles themselves as being Jews by Extraction by St. Paul himself the most zealous Acts xxi 26 Opposer of those very same Rites as impos'd on the Gentiles and that after he had said and done so many things against their Imposition If therefore even these Particulars neither were nor could be thought unlawful How can our Adversaries gather it concerning those many other things against which they can pretend no other Exception but their originally Mosaick Imposition The Apostle himself rather implys
at present to follow this Argument as far as it would lead me It suffices now to observe that this Hypothesis seems generally alluded to in the Sacred Writers especially of the New Testament and therefore cannot indeed be thought so precarious as our Adversaries might otherwise conceive if they will suffer themselves to be led away with popular Prejudices without examining it The New Testament plainly enough distinguishes the Gift of Healing which Cured Diseases not caus'd by Devils directly from the Curing Infirmities caus'd by Devils which were sufficiently Cured by casting out the Devils that caus'd them And I think also that they mention no Aylings of the latter sort which may not be accounted for by their Power allow'd them by God on the Parts now mention'd However this Difference between Divine Prophecy and Diabolical Enthusiasm seems to have been generally agreed on that Prophecy requir'd Imagination but perfected and duly subordinated to the Nobler Faculties but Enthusiasm went no farther than the Imagination and therefore disorder'd and hindred the Understanding and the immaterial Faculties depending on it And our Adversaries must be very difficult indeed in their Concessions if they can doubt whether Instrumental Musick can affect the Imagination so as to Compose or Disorder it Yet this alone is sufficient for disabling Devils to Influence it if their Power be confined by Providence to disposed Matter and Musick may indispose the Imagination for their Influences and it be not withal in their Power to make or hinder Dispositions BUT our Adversaries have a strange XIII Such a Notion of the Spiritualness of our Religion as makes uncapable of Sensible Assistances is fundamentally inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Apostolical Age. Notion of the Spiritualness of our Christian Religion as if all Bodily and External Assistances were now perfectly useless and inconsistent with the Nature of our present Dispensation On this account they are averse to all Assistances of our Senses as well as this of Instrumental Musick But why should God have Instituted Sacraments for Assisting our Senses if the whole kind of such Assistances had been so derogatory to the Nature of his new Establishment Why should he have allow'd even Vocal Musick if even our Senses could contribute nothing to the raising of the Devotion of our Spirits I know our Adversaries are more willing to impute this Usefulness of Instrumental Musick rather to the extraordinary Interposition of God seconding his own Institution But why should they think it derogatory to the Providence of God that he should make use of the Power himself has given to the Natures of Things Or why should they deny the Experience of so many Heathens who tho' they regarded not the Institutions of the God of the Jews yet receiv'd the same Practice of Instrumental Musick on account of the Devotion they pretended to feel rais'd in themselves by it in their several false Religions This could be imputable to nothing but the Natures of the things themselves But where have they learned such a Notion of the Spiritualness of the Christian Religion that should exclude the Use or even the Necessity of Corporeal Assistances The Scripture is not more express in requiring a Spiritual Worship than it is in requiring that also of the Body Our Bodies are Temples of the Holy Ghost and we are accordingly requir'd to Glorifie God in our Bodies as well as our Spirits which are his 1 Cor. vi 19 20. The unmarried Woman is so to care for the things of the Lord that she may be Holy both in Body and in Spirit vii 34. We are to present our Bodies a living Sacrifice holy acceptable to God which is our reasonable Service Rom. xii 1. And our whole Spirit and Soul and Body are to be preserved Blameless unto the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thes. v. 23. If Service be expected from the Body as well as the Spirit How can it be disagreeable to the Nature of our Spiritual Religion that such Parts of Bodily Worship may be retain'd or introduc'd as may in their own Nature contribute to the Worship of the Spirit There was indeed near the Apostles times an Opinion introduc'd among the Philosophers Numenius perhaps may be the first that brought it in from whom Porphyry owns Plotinus to have borrowed what he has to this purpose That the Soul alone was the Man and that the Body was no part of the Man but a Prison to the Soul and therefore preternatural to it and to be avoided by it that it might be qualified for a perfect State And these did indeed so insist on the Spiritual Nature of Religion as to discharge the Body from any share in it The Good Man with them was the only Priest the Soul it self the only acceptable Temple the Devotion of the Mind the pleasing Sacrifice And the the way to union with God was to alienate themselves as much as was possible from the Body and from the external Societies of Men and to enure themselves to abstracted Operations of the Mind in order to the Cultivating of the Spirit which was the only Power that they thought capable of an Union with the Supreme Being This is that Philosophical Religion so much Celebrated by Plotinus Porphyry himself and Hierocles and several other of the later Philosophers Porphyry particularly was very much pleas'd with it as appears from his Sentences and his Books de Abstinentiâ but especially from his Epistle to Anebo where he does by these Principles undermine all Obligation to the Externals of the Heathen as well Ap. Jambli de myst Egypt Porphy vit Plotin as the Christian Religion This put him on Starving himself in his Lilybaean Retirement if his Master Plotinus whom he follow'd in these Opinions had not reclaim'd him This seems to be the Original of all that Enthusiasm that has decry'd the external Ordinances and Sacraments even of Christ himself upon Pretences to greater Perfection and several Fancies of the old Monks relating this way in Anastasius Sinaita of the Popish Mystical Divinity and Quietism of the Familists and Quakers of the Bourignonists and Philadelphians c. It is strange our Presóyterian Adversaries who dislike these Consequences in others so destructive of their own Discipline are notwithstanding insensible of the advantage they have given to others of justifying Separation from themselves by these Pretences of the Spiritual Nature of the Evangelical Worship by which themselves defended their own Separation from their own Superiours This might at least have warned them to a more accurate Examination of the Principle when they found they could not justifie the Consequences which followed from it For us it is abundantly sufficient that this Doctrine tho' taught by the Adversaries of the Apostles Age was notwithstanding perfectly different from the Sense of the Apostolical Church it self The Hereticks by this means evaded the Resurrection of the Body pretending the Resurrection promis'd was already past in their mystical Resurrection
from Sin For the rising of the Body could not be thought a Reward if the being in the Body was preternatural and a State of Punishment Thence also it proceeded that so many of those first Hereticks defiled the Flesh as not belonging to them and condemn'd Marriage as contributing to confine Souls to Bodies upon this very Pretence of being themselves Spiritual and being therefore for a more Spiritual way of Worship But it is as certain that this Doctrine was different from the Doctrine of the Apostles as it is certain the Apostles were for the Holy Treatment and Resurrection of the Body and that they Condemn'd those for Hereticks who Reason'd from this Principle insisted on by our Adversaries of which they had otherwise no better means of Information How therefore can our Adversaries Reason loosly for the Reformation of Christianity from that same Principle which we see was contrary to the very Foundations of truly Primitive Apostolical Christianity Which was the Foundation of most of those Heresies which were then Condemn'd by that Unquestionable Authority FOR my part I can see no Difference XIV The same Reasons that prov'd Bodily worship useful in the Mosaick Discipline prove it so still in this particular between the Old and the New Peculium We have Bodies as well as they and of the same frail Make and Constitution as theirs were Our Souls are also of the same Kind as dependent on our Bodies as theirs and as apt to be Influenc'd by them Providence has impos'd no new Rules that we know of for the Influences of Good and Evil Spirits from what were impos'd then What then should hinder but that still our Minds should be Influenc'd by the Good and Evil Dispositions of our Bodies as much as formerly And that in order to the receiving the Influences of both sorts of Spirits And certainly they cannot think that Musick has lost any of that Influence on our Bodies that it had formerly How can they therefore doubt but that it might still have the same effect on the like Bodies alike Influencing the same kind of Souls The Church is still as much a Body as it was then and as much oblig'd to Worship God in Assemblies tho' not confin'd to one particular Nation as it was then And the Apostle requires that all Acts of the Worship in Assemblies were to be perform'd with a design of Edifying the whole Assemblies He permits no Exercise of Gifts even of the Divine Spirit there but such as were for common Edification But the Edification of Assemblies is not otherwise performable than by Sensible and Corporeal Significations These are the only means by which the whole Body can Communicate in the Devotion of every particular by which they can mutually give and receive Edification It is therefore still as impossible to signifie a great Honour for the Deity Ador'd in such Assemblies but by Signs greatly affecting the very Senses And what is done in the Name of the whole Body ought to be suited to the Dignity of the Body represented That must be by Signs by which Bodies usually signifie their great Respect by the Customs of such Bodies But Bodies do not usually signifie their great Respect in their Worldly intercourse otherwise than by Pomp and Magnificence They cannot therefore signifie it in Affairs of Religion by Signs mean and ordinary Especially if their Design be to signifie it to the Senses and for the Edification of others For certainly Signs which signifie a mean or no Respect on other occasions cannot be thought to signifie a great one in the Affairs of Religion It is on the contrary taken as an Affront to Honour excellent Persons in a way unsuitable to their Character tho' the same Significations might justly be reputed Honourable if perform'd to an inferiour Person to whom they had been proportionable This Consideration must make all Significations short of the utmost that can be done dishonourable when paid to an Infinitely Perfect Being The Magnificence therefore of the Worship of God ought to be such as it us'd to signifie the greatest Respect to the Senses of the Spectators if the Respect be to be signified Sensibly I know not how our Adversaries can deny any part of this Reasoning on the Principles now mentioned BUT I know they do pretend Authority XV. The VVorship of God in Spirit not oppos'd to that which is Sensible Corporeal but to the Literal Sense of the Law of Moses for this way of Arguing God is a Spirit says our Saviour and they that Worship him must Worship him in Spirit and in Truth St. Joh. iv 24. This is spoken with relation to the Worship of the Jews at Jerusalem and the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim and therefore must signifie something Spiritual in the Christian Religion which was not so in the Worship of the Jews and the Samaritans But this might very well be true without making external Worship inconsistent with the spiritual Nature of the Christian Religion The true Account of this Matter I take to be this That in what was common to the Jews and the Samaritans there were two Parts the Sensible and the External Part which was proper to themselves and which the Christians were not concern'd in and the Mystical and Spiritual which was principally design'd by God which was thenceforward to obtain as the peculiar Glory of the Christian Religion So the New Testament is oppos'd to the Old that it is not of the Letter as the Old was but of the Spirit 2 Cor. iii. 6. that is that the New Testament is really the same with the Old the same thing in the Spiritual Sense which was prefigur'd by the Literal Sense of what was enjoyn'd on the Jews then Thus the Letter and Circumcision are taken for Circumcision in the Literal Sense Rom. ii 27. by a known Hendiadis and Circumcision of the Heart is said to be in the Spirit not in the Letter v. 29. So the Service in newness of the Spirit is oppos'd to that which had been in the oldness of the Letter Rom. vii 6. And when the Jews understood our Saviour's Discourse concerning Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood in a Carnal Sense he Corrects their Mistake by telling them That the Words he had spoken to them were Spirit and Life St. Joh. vi 63. that is by warning them that his Words were to be understood not Literally but Mystically Life is join'd with Spirit in our Saviour's Words exactly as it is by the Apostle when he also tells us that the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth Life 2 Cor. iii. 6. intimating that the Life promis'd by Moses when he set Life and Death before the Israelites was not to be expected from the Observation of the Literal Sense of the Mosaical Law but the Mystical which was a strong Obligation to the New Peculium Because the Mystical Sense even of the old Law which was the principal Sense design'd by God was suppos'd to be the
teaching his Disciples what he would have them do afterwards and introducing it he did not allow even the present Necessities of his Disciples to over-rule him Thus I am very apt to think the generality of his Disciples were then inclinable to understand him And therefore thus in all likelihood he design'd they should understand him when he gave them no warning of misunderstanding him in such a way of Interpreting his Mind as he foresaw them inclinable to follow by the way of reasoning of that Age. It was a receiv'd Principle that our Saviours Actions as well as his Discourses were Prophetical and Instructive And that they signified many things which were not to be understood at present but afterwards when they were fulfilled and when Providence had fitted circumstances for practising them Especially in things which were not practicable at present as not fitted to their present Circumstances This was plainly the Case then in relation to the Subject of our present Discourse The Poverty of the Apostolical Christians disabled them for all things Sumptuous and Magnificent Nor was there then any Prospect of a Change for the better which might make it prudent to provide expresly for the Case Withal our blessed S. Joh. xiii 7. Saviour knew that his Sense would be gathered from his Actions Himself had train'd up his Disciples to do so And the Jews in their mystical Interpretations of the History of the Old Testament had even in his time taken up the Custom of gathering the Sense of God from the Prophetick Instincts and Actions of their own Patriarchs The leaving them therefore to those Inferences which he foresaw them inclinable to make from his Actions and Intimations was a very prudent a very sufficient Provision for a Case which was to fall out at such a distance afterwards THE only Reason this present Adversary insists on for proving the Inconsistence XVIII Magnificence not repugnant to the Simplicity of the Gospel of Magnificence with the Nature of the Worship of the Gospel is that the Romanists are usually censur'd for their excess in this kind This he only takes for granted and draws Inferences from it but never offers any Proof that it is indeed blameable The same way he takes in his use of the other popular Prejudices now disprov'd but methinks it would have better become them who so usually appeal from humane Authorities to the Scriptures if they could find any that even themselves could judge favourable to their Design before they had ventured on drawing Inferences That would have made their Dissent look more like a reverence to greater Authority than Resentmentand an Aversation to their Adversaries against whom they are concern'd in this whole Dispute But I cannot indeed imagine what they can pretend from the Scriptures against the Magnificence of Gods Worship in those who are able to bear the Burthen of it They may fancy perhaps that the Simplicity of the Gospel may be inconsistent with this Magnificence But the Simplicity of the Gospel is never that I know of us'd concerning the Worship of the Gospel it self but concerning the good meaning of the Persons who Preached the Gospel It is plainly oppos'd to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. XI 3. It is us'd as synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 1. 12. which plainly shew that it signifies Sincerity and Heartiness only in opposition to double Dealing But so far it is from implying Inexpensiveness that on the contrary it rather sometimes denotes Liberality when it is used concerning a subject that is capable of it So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xii 8. As the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oppos'd to that which is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Mat. vi 22. 23. And as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oppos'd to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Mat. xx 15. as that signifies Bounteouesness and Liberality In this way of Interpretation the Simplicity of the Gospel signifies the Generosity of the Gospel and will rather countenance Magnificence than discourage it BUT our present Adversary is solicitous XIX Sacred Dancet not unlawful but not therefore necessary to be restor'd if Instrumental-Musick beso for the Consequences that may follow from the restitution of Instrumental Musick He conceives that by the like Inferences we may restore Circumcision and bloody Sacrifices and the old Custom of Dancing to the Instrumental Musick And what if we should grant him his last Consequence concerning Dancing so far at least as to acknowledge that the Church might lawfully reduce it I doubt he would be hard put to it to prove it unlawful It must be so at least if he would confine himself as they pretend to do to the Scriptures He cannot sure think there is any Argument in the irreverent Expression he uses concerning it It is no other than what Michol would probably have used if she had spoken English But David was contented to bear the Reproach of it and to justify it against her And I believe our Adversaries will not easily question but that we are safer in following the Sense of David than they are in following that of Michol The Design of the Objection in both Cases both of our Adversaries and of Michol is to Charge the Posture of Dancing with the Imputation of Levity As if there could not be Grave and Decorous Dances as well as Grave and Decorous Tunes and as if there could not be Grave and Decorous tunes on Instrumental as well as on Vocal Musick At present it is sufficient for us now that if their Objection had been true in general God would neither have allow'd sacred Dancing then nor would David have avowedly defended it nor would God have seconded him in doing so by inflicting a Punishment on Michol for her Prophane upbraiding her Prince and Husband with it as if in Practising it he had done any thing beneath the Dignity of his Station If they will defend David in it they are as much oblig'd as we are to own the weakness of this general Charge I think therefore the Practice if it had been again receiv'd secure enough if they will be pleas'd to admit no Objections against it now that would have prov'd it unlawful then For we have a greater Evidence than any their Reasons can pretend to that it was not unlawful then But supposing it lawful yet the Apostle himself will assure them that all things indeed lawful are not on that account alone to be therefore own'd as expedient 1. Cor. vi 12. x. 23. And therefore fit to receive a new Sanction There will be no more Obligation to revive that ancient Custom now than many others which were undoubtedly allowable and prudent in those times wherein they were universally receiv'd but have now lost the reason that made them useful then by their being since as universally disus'd Singularity alone is an inconvenience in a thing indifferent in its own Nature where there are not more momentous
foul them is likewise threatned Am. iv 6. Teeth as well as Mills are called the Grinders Eccle. xii 3 4. It also describes the Disconsolateness of their Condition when they should want the common comfort of Light Exactly parallel to the Passage in Jer. xxv 10. where it is threatned that the sound of the Mill-stone and the light of the Candle should be taken away Next it is added And the Voice of the Bridegroom and of the Bride sholl be heard no more at all in thee The Adversary himself will not I believe conclude that the rejoycings in Marriage are therefore unlawful This is also another way of signifying a very dejected State in the Prophetical Poetick Stile So Jer. vii 34. xvi 9. xxv 10. Thus it was counted to have no share in those few Solemnities of Joy which were allowed in States not utterly ruin'd at least at Nuptial Festialties So clear it is that tho' we should grant that these things were to be understood of Antichrist yet they would not prove the Sinfulness of the things of which he was to be deprived but the Calamity of the Deprivation BUT our Author has an Observation XXIV Dr. Lightfoots Observation that the Temple Worship was wholly Ceremonious and the Synagogue VVorship wholly Moral is not true from the very learned Dr. Lightfoot which if it had been true would I confess weaken what I have said for Instrumental Musick Christ says that excellent Person abolish'd the Worship of the Temple as purely Ceremonious but he perpetuated the Worship of the Synagogue reading the Scriptures Praying Preaching and Singing of Psalms and Transplanted it into the Christian Church as purely Moral For I have already granted that Instrumental Musick was used not in the Worship of the Synagogues but of the Temple But there are no Words of Christ that I know of that could be so much as pretended for shewing what he designed concerning these two Worships in General and much less to shew that this was Christ's design concerning them We have seen withal that the Apostles did separate from the Synagogue worship tho' they never did so from that of the Temple This would rather imply the contrary to what that great Man has advanc'd if Arguments were allow'd to proceed universally on either side But as there is no Text so neither is there any Reason to pass this Judgment concerning both these kinds universally I know not why singing of Psalms should be counted Moral Especially according to our Adversaries Opinion which ascribes its efficacy for promoting Devotion not to its own Nature but to its divine Institution This must needs take away the antecedent Reason of its Institution So far it is from allowing it an Antecedent Reason that it must necessarily and universally oblige without any positive Sanction This is usually thought necessary according to the commonly received notion of a Law of Nature And on the contrary the use of Lots were taken by the Apostles from the use of the Temple Worship where it was usually made use of for determining which particular Priests of the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to perform the duty of the Week This could be used by the Jews no where but at Jerusalem because there was no other place where Priests could lawfully Officiate But by the Apostles it was made use of not only for choosing a new Apostle of their own order as in the Case of St. Mathias but also for determining the Persons that were to be invested with Ecclesiastical Sacerdotal Power And that very consequently because the exercise of the Evangelical Priesthood was not confin'd to one place as that of the Jewish Priesthood was to Jerusalem This was used so generally that from thence the name of Clerus came to be appropriated to the sacred Order in opposition to the Laity as I have often shewn elsewhere It is therefore a plain instance Diss. Cyp. 1. that the general way of Reasoning will not hold that any thing must be unlawful now on that alone account that it had been used in the Worship of the Temple I know no ground the Doctor could have for this Distinction but that he seems to have believed that the Temple worship was universally settled by a positive Law of God as having no antecedent reason why it should have obliged without such a positive Sanction and that the Synagogue worship having no positive Sanction in the Scriptures without which our Adversaries allow no proof of a positive Devine Sanction must therefore have received the Sanction it pretended to from the nature of the things themselves and therefore as immutable as those natures of things from which they thought it was deriv'd This is indeed so far suitable to our Adversaries Principles granted on popular receiv'd Prejudices that in things of this nature they allowed no humane Sanction to be of any force This precarious Supposition did naturaly put them upon finding a Divine original for all the old Establishment of the Worship of the Synagogue which because they could not pretend to find in the Scriptures they were oblig'd to derive from the Moral Law which was indeed suppos'd to derive its Authority from a divine Legislation But the Moral Law being founded as they thought on the Nature of the things they must therefore believe its Obligation as Eternal and Immutable as those Natures were supos'd to be So on the contrary because the written Law was written with a prospect on one fixed Place for their solemn Assemblies which fixation was made by a positive divine Sanction which was designedly to cease upon the Destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Dispersion of the Jewish Nation therefore they think the whole written Law relating to the Temple was to have an end with the Temple for the use of which it was contrived But neither way does the Argument proceed as our Adversaries are concerned for it The Synagogue Worship not being a thing expressly provided for in the old Testament where there is no mention of Synagogues in the latter Sense of the Word I should rather have taken for an Argument against the Reasonings of the Nonconformists from the Testimonies of the old Testament for the necessity of an express divine Command for every indifferent Circumstance of Divine-Worship when the whole kind of Synagogue-Worship cannot pretend to a divine Command in the Scriptures And without the Scriptures there can be no divine Command pretended by their Principles but what is Moral which must therefore be grounded on Eternal and Immutable Reasons which will not be so easily found for every particular of the Worship of the Synagogue as our Adversaries may fancy before they consider it Every atnecedent Reason will not do For inded no Law however positive can be thought prudent that has not an antecedent Reason that might move the Legislator to add his Sanction to it But if that had been alone sufficient to oblige the Subject there could have been no necessity of
to Confine them to these Aërial Regions and to make them need the Nidour of Bloody Sacrifices for their Nourishment and Delight and that inclin'd them to that Malignity of Nature that made the Devils that ungovernable Pride that Envy at the Prosperity of others that Relish of Cruelty and doing ill Offices to their fellow Creatures which are the Characteristicks of those wicked Beings This being suppos'd must make them uncapable of Acting the reasonable but only the inferiour material Faculties Their Power therefore was conceiv'd to be only in the Imagination and the material Faculties depending on it These being suited to their degenerated Nature they can therefore Act upon them as far as the Rules of Providence shall give them leave for the tryal of free Agents in order to Rewards or Punishments Their way of Tempting therefore is to awaken those Ideas which lie Dormant in the Imagination and sensitive Memory as the effects of vicious Inclinations confirm'd by frequently repeated vicious Acts. I mean to awaken them at the Presence of vicious Objects and suitable Opportunities This may be allow'd them if they be permitted to Act upon the Brain the Seat of the Imagination and the other material Faculties and Ideas which raise the Passions and make them Head-strong and consequently affect the whole Body in the Disturbances following upon them Accordingly Madnesses which arise from Disorders of the Brain were usually ascrib'd to Devils in those Times The Excellent Mr. Mead has long since made this Observation on those Words of the Evangelist He hath a Devil and is Mad why hear ye him Joh. x. 20. So having a Devil is the same with being Mad in the Language of that Age. Thou hast a Devil Who goeth about to kill thee Joh. vii 20. And when the Jews charge our Saviour with Inconsistency in his Discourse they tell him that he had a Devil Joh. viii 48. but more plainly v. 52. Now we know that thou hast a Devil Abraham is dead and the Prophets and thou sayest If a Man keep my saying he shall never taste of Death So St. John x. 21. These are not the Words of one that hath a Devil From the Coherence of our Saviour's Discourse they infer that he had no Devil The same Opinion is represented by St. Justin Martyr as the Sense of the Christians of his Age that Mad Persons Apology were believed to be Daemoniacks As therefore King Saul was Punished by having an evil Spirit sent him from the Lord so also frequently in the Poets the ancientest Writers of the Greeks and the Personators of the eldest Antiquities they knew of it is mentioned as the Punishment of piacular Persons that they were delivered over to Furies and by them alienated from their Senses and driven into Madness So in the Case of Athamas of Hercules of Alcmaeon of Orestes c. And their Cure was usually by Expiations and Offices of Religion rather than Physick which proved the Aylings to be caus'd immediately by Spirits Yet sometimes also by Physick which proved withal that the Disposition of the matter was removeable by Natural Expedients and that when it was so the Evil Spirits had no longer Power to molest those who were so Cur'd by the Rules prescrib'd to them by Providence This Hippocrates proves particularly in the Case of the Morbus Sacer. Besides these de Morb. Sac. Distractions of Mind there were also other Aylings and Diseases inflicted by way of Punishment on Criminals by the Sentence of God and the Intervention of Evil Spirits Such were the Falling-Sickness such were Aylings returning with the Changes of the Moon such were Leprosies such several sorts of Fevers and Agues such all those Molestations which were removable by Charms and the like suspected means of Covenants and Intercourse with Evil Spirits For it was the receiv'd Opinion as Tertullian shews that the Devils could Cure no Maladies but such as had been caus'd by them by ceasing to use the Means that had caus'd them when they were adress'd to in the ways appointed by themselves and permitted by Providence for the Punishment of those who rely'd on them and maintained such unlawful Intercourse with the Spirits that had appointed them They did not so much as pretend to Cure all sorts of Diseases by Charms and Expiations I believe all those Diseases which were so Cured may be reduc'd to the Brain that part which I have shewn was thought liable to the Devils Influences I mean including the Spinal Marrow which is of the same Nature with the Brain This also is included in the Part allowed to the Devils to Act by the Romancer under the Name of St. Clemens in the third Century and therefore a good Witness of the Opinions receiv'd among the Christians of that Age. This is express'd less clearly in the Recognitions whereof we have only the Translation by Rufinus in these Words Ante omnia ergo intelligere debetis Recog l. v. c. 17. deceptionem Serpentis antiqui callidas ejus suggestiones qui quasi per prudentiam decipit vos velut ratione quâdam serpit per sensus vestros atque ab ipso vertice incipiens per interiores dilabitur medullas lucrum magnum computans deceptionem vestram But more clearly in the Greek perhaps more Faithfully preserved in the Clementines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Hom. x. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is no great matter whether the Tradition be true that is mentioned by the Ancients that the Spinal Marrow of a Man when corrupted turns into a Serpent Such as it is we have it from Authors ancient and not contemptible Ovid Pliny Plutarch and AElian However we Ovid. Met. xv v. 389. Plin. N. H. x. 66. Plut. Cleomen AEli de animal l. 1. c. 51. know even pretended Physiology is taken by the Mystical Interpreters of the Old Testament as a Rule of Mystical Interpretation and doth really serve the end of God for recommending Mystical Senses to the observation of the Reader better than truer Physiology that had not been so well understood by the Readers of those Times Besides we know what a Subject the Fall of Man and the Devils concern in it under the Allegory of a Serpent the Old Serpent as he is called in the Revelations afforded of Mystical Interpretations We know withal that even among the Heathens a lower sort of Daemons especially those called Heroes were usually represented under the Symbols of Serpents possibly in memory of this Scripture History as has been observ'd by the late Learned Bishop of Worcester in his Origin Sacr. Why might not then this Natural History be adapted to signifie the Seat of the Devils Influence There is a not-unlike Experiment pretended by the Pythagoreans for Explaining their Symbol for Abstaining from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rather apposite to this purpose because they as well as our Sacred Writers design'd mystical Senses especially in their Symbols But I cannot allow my self