his bloud that is our Propitiatory or Mercy-seat for so it is called in the Greek both of the Old and New Testament nor is the word I think ever used but in that sense unless in Ezekiel 43. for the Settle of the Altar But you will say This Christian Memorial is not always actually present in our Churches as some one or other at least of those in the Law were in the Temple I answer It is enough it is wont to be as the Chair of State loses not its relation and due respect though the King be not always there And remember that the Ark of the Covenant was not in Ierusalem when Daniel opened his windows and prayed thitherward yea that it was wanting in the Holy Place I mean that sacred Cabinet made by Moses all the time of the second or Zorobabel's Temple and yet the place esteemed notwithstanding as if it had been there You will yet except and say That in the Old Testament those things were appointed by divine Law and Commandment but in the New we find no such thing I answer In things for which we find no new Rule given in the New Testament there we are referred and left to the Analogy of the Old This the Apostle's proof taken from thence for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 13 14. viz. Thus were they Ergo So God hath ordained that we will give us to understand likewise the practice of the Church in baptizing Infants derived surely from the Analogie of Circumcision the hallowing of every first day of the week as one in every seven from the Analogie of the Iewish Sabbath and other the like S. Hierome witnesseth the same in that saying of his Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex Veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicant in Ecclesia That we may know saith he that the Apostolick traditions were derived from the Old Testament that which Aaron his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple the same do Bishops Priests and Deacons claim in the Church For we are to consider That the end of Christ's coming into the world was not properly to give new Laws unto menâ— but to accomplish the Law already given and to publish the Gospel of Reconciliation through his Name to those who had transgressed it Whence it is that we find not the style of the New Testament to carry a form of enacting Laws almost any where but those which are there mentioned to be brought in occasionally only by way of proof of interpretation exhortation application or the like and not as by way of constitution or re-enacting Meanwhile lest I should be mistaken mark well that I said not the Old Testament was to be our Rule simply in the case mentioned but the Analogie thereof only that is this regulation is to be made according to that proportion which the difference of the two Covenants and the things in them admits and no further the more particular application and limitation of which Analogie is to be referred to the judgment and prudence of the Church There comes here very fitly into my mind a passage of Clemens a man of the Apostolick age he whose name S. Paul saith was written in the Book of life in his genuine Epistle Ad Corinthios lately set forth pag. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is All those duties which the Lord hath commandedus to do we ought to do them regularly and orderly our Oblations and divine Services to celebrate them on set and appointed times For so he hath ordained not that we should do them at hap-hazard and without order but at certain determined days and times WHERE also and BY WHOM he will have them executed himself hath defined according to his supreme will But where hath the Lord defined these things unless he hath left us to the Analogy of the Old Testament It follows in the Text alledged There I will come unto thee and bless thee In the Place where the Lord 's Memorial is where his Colours as I may so speak are displayed and set up there in a special manner he vouchsafes his presence with the sons of men to bless them or to speak rotundè where his Memorial is there His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SHECINAH or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as the Hebrew Masters term it that is His GLORY The Gentiles ascribed the presence of their Gods to the places where Images and Statues were erected and consecrated for them But such personal similitudes the God of Israel abhors and forbids to be made unto Him yet promiseth his presence in every place where the Memorial or Record of his Name shall be but of his own appointment not of man's devising For thus I suppose is the Text there to be understood and to be construed by way of Antithesis or opposition You shall not make with me gods of silver nor gods of gold An Altar only of earth or of stone shalt thou make unto me to offer thy Sacrifices upon For in every place where I shall record my Name I will come unto thee and bless thee And here take notice that for this reason the Tabernacle of the Lord was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Tabernacle of meeting not of mens meeting together as is commonly supposed when we translate it Tabernacle of the Congregation but of God's meeting there with men I have a good author for it for so the Lord himself gives the reason of the name in three several places of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Tabernacle of meeting â—here I will meet with you See Exod. 29. 42. 30. 36. Num. 17. 4. and Masius in Ios. c. 18. SECTION II. THUS we have seen What is the condition and property of that Place which in my Text is called God's House But before I proceed to speak of the Duty of those who come thither which was the second thing I propounded there is one thing yet to be cleared concerning that which I last mentioned namely How God is said to come unto or to be present with men in one place more than another seeing his Presence fills every place Heaven being his throne and the whole Earth his footstool For although we read often in Holy Scripture of such a SHECINAH or Speciality of the Divine presence and have it often in our mouths yet what it is and wherein the Ratio thereof consisteth is seldom if at all enquired into When we speak of Churches we content our selves to say That God's special presence there is in his Word and Sacraments But though it be true that the Divine Majesty is there specially present where his Word and Sacraments are yet seems not this Speciality of presence to be the same with his Word and Sacraments but a diverse relation from them This
by the Prophets for so Prophets are here to be understood and not of predictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to fulfil them that is to supply accomplish or perfect those Rules and Doctrines of Iust and Unjust contained in them by a more ample interpretation and other improvement befitting the state of the Gospel For surely this must be the meaning of this speech of our Saviour if we be more willing as we should to take a sense from Scripture than to bring one to it Doth not the whole context following evince it Indeed the Law that is the Legal Covenant or Covenant of works as Law is oft taken in the New Testament together with all the Rites depending thereon is dissolved by the coming of Christ and a better Covenant with new Rites established in stead thereof but the Law that is the Doctrine and Rule of life given by God contradistinct from those ordinances which were only appendages of that Covenant though these were also in some sense perfected by bringing the truth and substance in stead of the figure and shadow thereof is not disannulled but confirmed and perfected by him in such manner as became the condition of the Covenant of the Gospel For that this confirmation is not to be restrained to the Decalogue only is manifest because our Saviour in the following words insists upon other Precepts besides it If it be said they are reducible thereto this will not serve the turn for so are all the rest of God's Commandments Unless therefore it can be shewn that to honour God by an oblation of his creature is no part of the Law here confirmed by our Saviour let no man be so daringly bold as to exempt himself and others from the obligation thereof unless he means to be one of them of whom our Saviour speaks immediately saying Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men so to do mark it he shall be called i. he shall be the least in the Kingdom of heaven The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is loose or dis-bind as he doth both that abrogates and that observes it not much more he that affirmeth it unlawful to be observed Nay how dare we dis-bind or loose our selves from the tye of that way of agnizing and honouring God which the Christian Church from her first beginnings durst not do Irenaeus witness of that age which next succeeded the Apostles is plain Lib. 4. c. 34. Offerre oportet Deo saith he primitias creaturae ejus sicut Moses ait Non apparebis vacuus ante conspectum Domini Dei tui Et non genus Oblationum reprobatum est oblationes enim illic sc. in V.T. oblationes autem hîc sacrificia in populo sacrificia in Ecclesia sed species immutata est tantùm quippe cum jam non à servis sed à liberis offeratur Vnus enim idem Dominus proprium autem character servilis oblationis proprium liberorum uti per oblationes ostendatur indicium libertatis It behoveth us saith he to offer unto God a present of his creature as also Moses saith Thou shalt not appear before the Lord thy God emptie For offerings in the general are not reprobated there were Offerings there viz. in the Old Test. there are also offerings here in the Church but the specification only is changed forasmuch as offerings now are not made by bond but free-men For there is one and the same Lord still but there is a proper character of a bond or servile offering and a proper character of free-mens that so even the offerings may shew forth the tokens of freedom Now where in Scripture he believed this doctrin and practice to be grounded he lets us know in the 27. chap. of the same Book Et quia Dominus naturalia Legis per quae homo justificatur quae etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui side justificabantur placebant Deo non dissolvit sed extendit sed implevit ex sermonibus ejus ostenditur That is That our Lord dissolved not but enlarged and perfected the natural precepts of the Law whereby a man is just which also before the Law was given they observed who were justified by faith and pleased God is evident by his words Then he cites some of the passages of that his Sermon upon the Mount Mat. 5. 20. And a little after addes Necesse fuit auferre quidem vincula servitutis quibus jam homo assueverat sine vinculis sequi Deum superextendi verò decreta libertatis augeri subjectionem quae est ad Regem ut non retrorsus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui se liberavit Et propter hoc Dominus pro eo quod est Non moechaberis nec concupiscere praecepit pro eo quod est Non occîdes neque irasci quidem et pro eo quod est Decimare omnia quae sunt pauperibus dividere That is It was needful that those bonds of servitude which man had before been inured to should be taken off that so he might without Gyves follow God but that the laws and ordinances of freedom should be extended and his subjection to the King encreased lest that drawing backward he might appear unworthy of him that freed him And for this reason our Lord in stead of Thou shalt not commit adultery commands not so much as to lust in stead of Thou shalt not kill not so much as to be angry in stead of To Tithe to distribute all we have to the poor c. All which saith he in the same place are not solventis Legem sed adimplentis extendentis dilatantis not of one that dissolves the Law but fulfils extends and enlarges it alluding still to that in our Saviour's Sermon upon the Mount Besides those who are acquainted with Antiquity can tell that the Primitive Christians understood the holy Eucharist to be A commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ's death upon the Cross in an oblation of Bread and Wine 'T is witnessed by the Fathers of those first Ages generally Whereupon the same Irenaeus also affirmeth that our Saviour by the institution of the Eucharist had confirmed Oblations in the New Testament Namely to thanks give or bless a thing in way to a sacred use he took to be an offering of it unto God And was not David's Benediction and thanksgiving at the preparation for the Temple and Offertory Where note well That as he upon that occasion blessed the Lord saying Thine O Lord is the greatness and the power and the glory all that is in heaven and earth is thine thine is the Kindgom Both riches and honour come of thee Ergo because all things come of theâ— of thine own have we given thee so do Christ's redeemed in their Evangelical Sâ—â—â— Apoc. 5. ascribe no less unto him saying v. 12. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and
openeth the womb shall be called Holy unto the Lord Ergo To be the Lord's and to be Holy are Synonyma's Though therefore the Gentiles Court had no sanctity of legal distinction yet had it the sanctity of peculiarity to God-ward and therefore not to be used as a common place The Illation proceeds by way of Conversion My House shall be called the House of Prayer to all Nations or People Ergo The House of Prayer for all Nations is my Father's House And the Emphasis lies in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators were not so well advised of when following Beza too close they render the words thus My House shall be called of all Nations the House of Prayer as if the Dative Case here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were not Acquisitive but as it is sometimes with passive verbs in stead of the Ablative of the Agent for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which sense is clean from the scope and purpose of the place whence it is taken as he that compares them will easily see and I shall make fully to appear in the next part of my Discourse which I tendred by the name of an Observation To wit That this fact of our Saviour more particularly concerns us of the Gentiles than we take notice of Namely we are taught thereby what reverent esteem we ought to have of our Gentile Oratories and Churches howsoever not endued with such legal sanctity in every respect as was the Temple of the Iews yet Houses of Prayer as well as theirs This Observation will be made good by a threefold Consideration First of the Story as I have related it secondly from the Text here alledged for warrant thereof and thirdly from the circumstance of Time For the Story I have shewed it was acted in the Gentiles Court and not in that of the Iews because it is not credible that was thus prophaned It cannot therefore be alledged that this was a place of legal sanctity for according to legal sanctity it was held by the Iews as common only it was the place for the Gentiles to worship the God of Israel in and seems to have been proper to the second Temple the Gentiles in the first worshipping without at the Temple-door in the holy Mountain only Secondly The place alledged to avow the Fact speaks expresly of Gentile-worshippers not in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only but in the whole body of the context Hear the Prophet speak Esay chap. 56. ver 6 7. and then judge The sons of the stranger that joyn themselves to the Lord to serve him and to love the Name of the Lord to be his servants every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it and taketh hold of my Covenant namely that I alone shall be his God Even them will I bring to my holy Mountain and make them joyful in my House of Prayer their burnt-offerings and sacrifices accepted upon mine Altar Then follow the words of my Text For my House shall be called that is shall be it is an Hebraism a House of Prayer for all People What is this but a Description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gentile-worshippers And this place alone makes good all that I have said before viz. That this vindication was of the Gentiles Court Otherwise the allegation of this Scripture had been impertinent for the Gentiles of whom the Prophet speaks worshipped in no place but this Hence also appears to what purpose our Evangelist expressed the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as that which shewed wherein the force of the accommodation to this occasion lay which the rest of the Evangelists omitted as referring to the place of the Prophet whence it was taken those who heard it being not ignorant of whom the Prophet spake Thirdly the circumstance of Time argues the same thing if we consider that this was done but a few days before our Saviour suffered to wit when he came to his last Passeover How unseasonable had it been to vindicate the violation of Legal and typical sanctity which within so few days after he was utterly to abolish by his Cross unless he had meant thereby to leave his Church a lasting lesson what reverence and respect he would have accounted due to such places as this was which he vindicated DISCOURSE XII S. IOHN 4. 23. But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth For the Father seeketh such to worship him THEY are the words of our Blessed Saviour to the Woman of Samaria who perceiving him by his discourse to be a Prophet desired to be resolved by him of that great controverted point between the Iews and Samaritans Whether Mount Garizim by Sichem where the Samaritans sacrificed or Ierusalem were the true place of worship Our Saviour tells her that this Question was not now of much moment For that the hour or time was near at hand when they should neither worship the Father in Mount Garizim nor at Ierusalem But that there was a greater difference between the Iews and them than this of Place namely even about That which was worshipped For ye saith he worship that ye know not but we Iews worship that we know Then follow the words premised But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth It is an abused Text being commonly alledged to prove that God now in the Gospel either requires not or regards not External worship but that of the Spirit only and this to be a characteristical difference between the worship of the Old Testament and the New If at any time we talk of external decency in rites and bodily expressions as sit to be used in the service of God this is the usual Buckler to repel whatsoever may be said in that kind It is true indeed that the worship of the Gospel is much more spiritual than that of the Law But that the worship of the Gospel should be only spiritual and no external worship required therein as the Text according to some meus sense and allegation thereof would imply is repugnant not only to the practice and experience of the Christian Religion in all Ages but also to the express Ordinances of the Gospel it self For what are the Sacraments of the New Testament are they not Rites wherein and wherewith God is served and worshipped The consideration of the holy Eucharist alone will consute this Gloss For is not the commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ's death upon the Cross unto his Father in the Symbols of Bread and Wine an external worship And yet with this Rite hath the Church in all Ages used to make her solemn address of Prayer and Supplication unto the Divine Majesty as the Iews in the Old Testament did by Sacrifice When I say in all Ages I include also that of the Apostles For so much S. Luke testifieth of that first Christian society
Acts 2. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They continued in breaking of Bread and in Prayers As for bodily expressions by gestures and postures as standing kneeling bowing and the like our Blessed Saviour himself lift up his sacred eyes to heaven when he prayed for Lazarus fell on his face when he prayed in his agony S. Paul as himself saith bowed his knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ He and S. Peter and the rest of the Believers do the like more than once in the Acts of the Apostles What was Imposition of hands but an external gesture in an act of invocation for conferring a blessing and that perhaps sometimes without any vocal expression joyned therewith Besides I cannot conceive any reason why in this point of Evangelical worship Gesture should be more scrupled at than Voice Is not confessing praising praying and glorifying God by Voice an external and bodily worship as well as that of Gesture why should then the one derogate from the worship of the Father in Spirit and Truth and not the other To conclude There was never any society of men in the world that worshipped the Father in such a manner as this interpretation would imply and therefore cannot this be our Saviour's meaning but some other Let us see if we can find out what it is There may be two senses given of these words both of them agreeable to Reason and the analogy of Scripture let us take our choice The one is That to worship God in Spirit and Truth is to worship him not with Types and shadows of things to come as in the Old Testament but according to the verity of the things exhibited in Christ according to that The Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Iesus Christ. Whence the Mystery of the Gospel is elsewhere by our Saviour in this Evangelist termed Truth as Chap. 17. ver 17. and the Doctrine thereof by S. Paul the word of Truth See Ephes. Chap. 1. ver 13. Rom. 15. 8. The time therefore is now at hand said our Saviour when the true worshippers shall worship the Father no longer with bloudy Sacrifices and the Rites and Ordinances depending thereon but in and according to the verity of that which these Ordinances figured For all these were Types of Christ in whom being now exhibited the true worshippers shall henceforth worship the Father This sense hath good warrant from the state of the Question between the Iews and Samaritans to which our Saviour here makes answer which was not about worship in general but about the kind of worship in special which was confessed by both sides to be tied to one certain place only that is of worship by Sacrifice and the appendages in a word of the Typical worship proper to the first Covenant of which see a description Heb. 9. This Iosephus expresly testifies Lib. 12. Antiq. cap. 1. speaking of the Iews and Samaritans which dwelt together at Alexandria They lived saith he in perpetual discord one with the other whilst each laboured to maintain their Country customs those of Ierusalem affirming their Temple to be the sacred place whither sacrifices were to be sent the Samaritans on the other side contending they ought to be sent to Mount Garizim For otherwise who knows not that both Iews and Samaritans had other places of worship besides either of these namely their Proseucha's and Synagogues wherein they worshipped God not with internal only but external worship though not with Sacrifice which might be offered but in one place only And this also may seem to have been a Type of Christ as well as the rest namely that he was to be that one and only Mediator of the Church in the Temple of whose sacred body we have access unto the Father and in whom he accepts our service and devotions according to that Destroy this Temple and I will rear it up again in three days He spake saith the Text of the Temple of his Body This sense divers of the Ancients hit upon Eusebius Demon. Evang. Lib. 1. Cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not by Symbols and Types but as our Saviour saith in Spirit and Truth Not that in the New Testament men should worship God without all external services For the New Testament was to have external and visible services as well as the Old but such as should imply the verity of the promises already exhibited not be Types and shadows of them yet to come We know the Holy Ghost is wont to call the figured Face of the Law the Letter and the Verity thereby signified the Spirit As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Spirit and Truth both together they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once found in holy Writ to wit only in this place and so no light can be borrowed by comparing of the like expression any where else to expound them Besides nothing hinders but they may be here taken one for the exposition of the other namely that to worship the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with to worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But howsoever this exposition be fair and plausible yet methinks the reason which our Saviour gives in the words following should argue another meaning God saith he is a Spirit therefore they that worship him must worship in Spirit and Truth But God was a Spirit from the beginning If therefore for this reason he must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth he was so to be worshipped in the Old Testament as well as in the New Let us therefore seek another meaning For the finding whereof let us take notice that the Samaritans at whom our Saviour here aimeth were the off-spring of those Nations which the King of Assyria placed in the Cities of Samaria when he had carried away the Ten Tribes captive These as we may read in the second Book of the Kings at their first coming thither worshipped not the God of Israel but the gods of the Nations from whence they came wherefore he sent Lions amongst them which slew them Which they apprehending either from the information of some Israelite or otherwise to be because they knew not the worship of the God of the Country they informed the King of Assyria thereof desiring that some of the captiv'd Priests might be sent unto them to teach them the manner and rites of his worship which being accordingly done they thenceforth as the Text tells us worshipped the Lord yet feared their own Gods too and so did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Chrysostome speaks mingle things not to be mingled In this medley they continued about three hundred years till toward the end of the Persian Monarchy At what time it chanced that Manasse brother to Iaddo the High Priest of the returned Iews married the daughter of Sanballat then Governour of Samaria for which being expelled from Ierusalem by Nehemiah he fled to Sanballat his Father in Law and after his
are the Apodosis Know ye not saith the Apostle that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that minister about holy things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do eat of the holy thing or as we turn it of the things of the Temple and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they which wait at the Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are fellow-sharers with the Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were imployed about holy things are the Levites who lived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the holy thing or if you had rather it should be a Substantive of the Temple that is of that which belonged thereto namely of the Tithes which belonged to the Temple but were no offering of the Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they who did incumbere or assidere altari wait at the Altar were the Priests whose proper office it was to offer sacrifices thereon and had part of the same for their proper maintenance as the breast and right shoulder before it was burnt and after so much as was reserved from burning so they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks they were fellow-sharers with the Altar the Altar having one part of the Offering they another Thus you see the Apostle in both sutes the maintenance with the Office The Office of the Levites was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be imployed about holy things their maintenance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy thing or the revenue of the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they eat of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Office of the Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wait at the Altar their maintenance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to share with the Altar Now then must not the Apodosis answer the Protasis what manner of similitude what analogy will there be else Ergo as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospel is the Office of the Ministers of the Gospel so is their maintenance noted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those therefore who so interpret these words as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place were taken in no other sense than it was in the first namely to note the Function or Calling of the Ministers as if the sense were no other but that the Ministers of the Gospel whose Calling it is to preach the Gospel should get their living by their Calling of preaching the Gospel make S. Paul the Author of a lame and inconsequent Similitude whose Apodosis answers not unto his Protasis For what a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what an Even so or analogy would this be The Levites lived of the Holy portion or revenue of the Temple as their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or wages Even so the Ministers of the Gospel must live by their Calling and Function The Priests were maintained out of the share they had of the Ofâ—erings of the Altar Even just so the Ministers of the Gospel must live by their Function of Preaching the Gospel May not any one see that the Apodosis answers not the Protasis For that speaks of the wages this of the service for which the wages is due Well therefore as in the Protasis the wages was compared with the work so must it be in the Apodosis too and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here express the wages as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth the work But now here is the Quaere If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note not the Function but the wages and maintenance due to the Evangelick Ministers in what notion then is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be taken and how to be expounded Oecumenius would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this last place to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the believers of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning to be That those who preach the Gospel should be maintained by those which believe the Gospel But this would make our Apodosis to answer the Protasis little better than the former For that speaks of the wages and maintenance of the Levites and Priests not a word of the maintainers Besides to speak properly 't is not true that the people maintain the Ministers they are not their Ministers but God's and he maintains them out of his own revenue and not at mens charges Quis militat suis stipendiis saith our Apostle at his entrance upon this Argument Who goeth to war at his own charges Now I ask Cujus stipendiis militat qui militat nonne Imperatoris At whose charges is it that any one goes to war is it not at the Sovereign's charges To which purpose note also by the way that it is not said here as we translate it So hath God ordained that those which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel but So hath God appointed or given order to those that preach the Gospel that they should live of the Gospel that is Non dicit Dominum mandâsse aliis ut eos alerent sed mandâsse ipsis ut ex Evangelio viverent But to return again to the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which others therefore had rather take here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which in the Gospel is consecrate to God viz. As the Priests and Levites had their maintenance out of that which was offered unto God in the Law so God had ordained that the Ministers of the Gospel should be maintained of that which is consecrate to him in the Gospel And this sense is straight and good But what need we flie to a Trope when the natural sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will serve our turn yea do it much better For howsoever in the New Testament it most commonly signifies good tidings yet in other Greek Writers the more usual signification in the singular number is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praemium quod datur laetum afferenti nuncium the gift or reward wont to be given for good tidings Homer Odyss 14. brings in Ulysses in a poor traveller's disguise stipulating with his servant Eumaeus what his reward should be for the good news he promised to tell him of his Master's life and speedy return 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let this be my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Reward saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A cloak a coat and other good garments To whom Eumaeus answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Neither am I able to give such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Reward neither will Ulysses ever come home again Plutarch in his De gloria Atheniensium relates that the Lacedaemonians to one that brought them tidings of the victory at Mantinâ—a having been no actor but a spectator only sent for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only a dish of meat from one of their common suppers called Phiditia the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Author within three or four
These are the several Heads I shall speak of and first of the First the Subject The Righteous or the Bountiful man For Righteousness in a special sense in the Hebrew and the rest of the Oriental Tongues of kin to it signifies Beneficence or Bounty both the Vertue and the Work and therefore by the Hellenists or Septuagint is it translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word so frequent in the New Testament for that we call Alms. 'T is a known place Dan. 4. according both to the Septuagint and Vulgar Latin Peccata tua Eleemosynis redime iniquitates tuas misericordiis pauperum Where in the Original for Eleemosyna Alms is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Righteousness as we in our English render it Break off thy sins by Righteousness and thine iniquity by shewing mercy to the poor This notion of Righteousness is to be found thrice together in the 12. of Tobit Ver. 8. Prayer saith old Tobit there to his Son is goodwith Fasting and with Alms and Righteousness A little with Righteousness is better than much with unrighteousness It is better to give Alms than to lay up gold 9. For Alms doth deliver from death and shall purge away all sin Those that exercise Alms and Righteousness shall be filled with life Here in the Greek copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alms and Righteousness are exegetically put the one to expound the other but in the Hebrew there is but one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for them both that being the word in that language for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence in the Syriack Translation of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustitia And so in the Arabick Hence Mat. 6. 1. for Take heed that you do not your alms before men as we read it the vulgar Latin and some Greek Copies have Attenditè ne justitiam vestram faciatis coram hominibus Take heed that you do not your righteousness before men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Namely as the word Charity with us though in the larger sense it signifies our whole duty both to God and man is restrained to signifie our Liberality to the poor so is the word Righteousness in the Oriental Languages If Righteousness therefore signifie Beneficence and Bounty then is the Righteous according to this notion the Bountiful man or as we speak the Charitable And that it is so taken in my Text both the general scope of the Psalm and the connexion with the words before and after is proof sufficient For before goes this A good man sheweth favour and lendeth he will guide his affairs with judgment Surely he shall not be moved for ever Then come the words of my Text The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance After it follows this He hath dispersed he hath given to the poor his righteousness remaineth for ever which S. Paul alledgeth 2 Cor. 9. 9. to promote their collection for the poor Saints at Ierusalem For illustration of this and our further information it will not be amiss I hope to commend to your observation some other places of Scripture where the word Righteous is thus taken as namely Psal. 37. 21. The wicked borroweth and payeth not again but the righteous sheweth mercy and giveth Again Vers. 25 26. I have been young and now am old yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging their bread He is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed Here the Righteous is the merciful and bountiful to whom namely this blessing That his seed shall not want is proper and peculiar The same use is Prov. 10. 2. Treasures of wickedness profit nothing but Righteousness delivereth from death The same is repeated again Chap. 11. 4. Riches profit not in the day of wrath but Righteousness delivereth from death Where Righteousness to be taken for Alms is apparent out of Tobit 12. 9. where it is so applied and rendred namely Alms doth deliver from death I could add also another place Prov. 21. 26. but these shall be sufficient Hence appears their errour who conceive of the nature of Alms as of an arbitrary thing which they may do if they will or not do without sin as that which carries no obligation with it but is left freely to every mans discretion And this makes some contend so much to have the Priest's maintenance granted to be Eleemosynary that so they might be at liberty to give something or nothing as they listed But if that were so yet if Alms be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Righteousness in the Hebrew tongue and the language which our Saviour spake if our Saviour call'd them Righteousness when he mentioned them who dare affirm then that Righteousness implies no obligation or that a man may leave it undone without sin THUS much of the Subject The Righteous Now I come to the Predicate shall be in everlasting remembrance In remembrance I said with God and men With God in the life to come and this life Let us see for the first The world to come It is certain that at the day of Iudgment we shall receive our doom according to our works of Charity and Mercy and that of all the works that a Christian man hath done these alone have that peculiar priviledge to be then brought in express remembrance before God Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the Foundation of the World For I was an hungred and ye gave me meat I was thirsty and ye gave me drink I was a stranger and ye took me in naked and ye clothed me I was sick and ye visited me I was in prison and ye came unto me c. Forasmuch as ye have done thus unto the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me Matt. 25. 34 c. What doth my Text say The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance God remembers our good deeds when he rewards them as he doth our prayers when he hears them If to remember then be to reward an everlasting reward is an everlasting remembrance 'T is remarkable that this priviledge which the works of Bounty and Mercy shall have at the day of Iudgment was not unknown to the Iews themselves for so we read in the Chaldee Paraphrast upon Ecclesiastes 9. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall come to pass at the day of Iudgment that the Lord of the world shall say thus openly to every righteous man then before him Go and eat with gladness thy bread which is laid up for thee as a reward for the bread which thou gavest to the poor and needy when they were an hungred and drink with gladness of heart the wine which is kept for thee in the garden of Eden or Paradise as a reward for the wine thou gavest the poor and needy when they were athirst for behold thy good works have found acceptance
the nature and grounds of what they practised lest for want thereof they might cherish some unsafe conceit And notwithstanding I preached for Bowing as you say to Altars yet I have not hitherto used it my self in our own Chappel though I see some others do it If I come into other Chappels where it is generally practised I love not to be singular where I have no scruple But you would not have me have any hand in killing the Witnesses God forbid I should I rather endeavour they might not be guilty of their own deaths And I verily believe the way that many of them go is much more unlikely to save their lives than mine I could tell you a great deal here if I had you privately in my chamber which I mean not for any mans sake to commit to paper Siracusae vestrae capientur in pulvere pingitis As for Bowing at the name Iesus 't is commanded by our Church And for my self I hold it not unlawful to adore my Saviour upon any Cue or hint given Yet could I never believe it to be the meaning of that place of the Philippians nor that it can be inferred thence otherwise than by way of a general and indefinite consequence I derive it rather from the Custom of the World in several Religions thus to express some kind of Reverence when that which they acknowledge for their God is named as we find the Turks do at this day Besides I conceive to do this reverence at the name Iesus only is proper to the Latine Church and it may be of later standing For if some Greeks have not deceived me the custom of the Orient is to bow the head not only at the name Iesus but at the name Christ and sometimes though not so frequently at the name God And if that were the fashion of the elder Christianity that out of S. Hierom would found more to the purpose Moris est Ecclesiastici Christo genu-flectere This is all I can say to this point having had fewer Notions thereabout than about any of the rest That the worship of the Inward man is that which God principally requires and looks at I think no Christian man denies But what then Doth not our Saviour's rule hold notwithstanding in such a comparison 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And consider that the Question is not here as most men seem to make it between Inward worship and Outward worship seorsim for in such case it is plain the Outward is nothing worth but whether the Inward worship together with the Outward may not be more acceptable to God than the Inward alone As for that so commonly objected Scripture in this question Of worshipping the Father in spirit and truth as the Characteristical difference of the Evangelical worship from the Legal I believe it hath a far different sense from that it is commonly taken to have and that the Iews in our Saviour's sense worshipped the Father in spirit and truth But my work grows so fast that I must let it pass and be content with that vulgar answer viz. That under the Old Testament God was worshipped in types and figures of things to come but in the New men should worship the Father in spirit and truth that is according to the verity of the things presignified not that they should worship him without all gestures or postures of Body to which purpose it is wont to be alledged But all this while my mind is upon another matter which at length I am gotten unto viz. your strange construction and censure of the pains I took in opening my thoughts so freely unto you concerning these matters of reverential posture and gesture in respect of that interlaced piece wherein I intimated the Eucharist to have in it ratio sacrificii For 1. Because in the close of my Letter I expressed my fear of some Iudgment to befall the Reformed Churches because out of the immoderation of their zeal they had in a manner taken away all Difference between Sacred and Prophane you will needs suspect I aimed to make the present Iudgments of God upon Christendom to be for neglect of that Sacrifice which I had spoken of a thing I never thought of nor thought so plain an expression of my meaning could ever have been so mistaken I pray let me intreat you to read over those papers once again and then tell me with whom the fault is For why Is not to esteem the Eucharist a Sacrament to account it a Sacred thing unless it be accounted a Sacrifice 2. It seems strange to you that a matter of so great importance as I seem to make this Sacrifice to be should have so little evidence in God's Word and Antiquity and depend merely upon certain conjectures As for Scripture if you mean the name of Sacrifice neither is the name Sacrament nor Eucharist according to our Expositions there to be found no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet may not the thing be But when you speak of so little Evidence to be found in Antiquity I cannot but think such an Affirmation far more strange than you can possibly my Opinion For what is there in Christianity for which more Antiquity may be brought than for this I speak not now of the Fathers meaning whether I guessed rightly at it or not but in general of their Notion of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist If there be little Antiquity for this there is no Antiquity for any thing Eusebius Altkircherus a Calvinist printed Neustadii Palatinorum 1584. 1591. De mystico incruento Ecclesiae Sacrificio pag. 6. Fuit haec perpetua semper omnium Ecclesiasticorum Patrum concors unanimis sententia Quòd instituta per Christum passionis mortis suae in Sacra Coena memoria etiam Sacrificii in se contineret commendationem Bishop Morton in Epist. Dedicator prefixed to his Book of the Eucharist Apud veteres Patres ut quod res est liberè fateamur de Sacrificio Corporis Christi in Eucharistia incruento frequens est mentio quae dici vix potest quantopere quorundam alioqui doctorum hominum ingenia exercuerit torserit vexaver◠aut è contrà quà m jactanter Pontificii de ea re se ostentent And that in the Age immediately following the Apostles the Eucharist was generally conceived of under the name and notion of a Sacrifice to omit the Testimonies of Ignatius and Iustin Martyr take only this of Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 32. Dominus discipulis suis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis eum qui ex creatura Panis est accepit gratias egit dicens Hoc est Corpus meum Calicem similiter qui est ex ea creatura quae est secundùm nos suum Sanguinem confessus est Novi Testamenti novam docuit Oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo c. And chap. 34. Igitur Ecclesiae Oblatio quam
to Moses but as solennia verba in that Case to her Child whom she circumcised it remains I should now tell you how they are so construed I say therefore Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum in Zipporah's meaning is as much as Sis mihi initiatus circumcisione Be thou my Bloud-son or the like It is well known how Tropically those words of relation of kindred Father Mother Sister Son are used in the Hebrew Tongue and Son besides other notions to be often the circumlocution of our vox concreta as Filius percussionis the Son of striking is he that is stricken or worthy to be beaten Filius foederis the Son of the Covenant is he that is in Covenant or to whom the Covenant belongs Filius mortis the Son of death he that is condemned to die or worthy of death and the like And why may not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gener sanguinum that is as the Holy Ghost expounds it circumcisionis be as much as circumcisus and Gener sanguinum tu mihi es for so I told you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies be as much as I pronounce thee circumcised As if the circumcised person by being married to Circumcision were made the Circumciser's Son-in-law and Circumcision's Bridegroom as Es or Sis mihi in generum desponsatus circumcisioni Now thou art or Be thou my Son-in-law being espoused to Circumcision Or if Bloud or Circumcision note the Instrument the Formula may be thus explicated That the person circumcised becomes God's Son-in-law as being wedded and joyned to his Church by the Bloud of Circumcision as with a Ring and then the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mihi must not be taken relatively to Zipporah as before but efficienter only in this sense Per me factus es gener Deo per sanguinem circumcisionis By me thou art made God's Son-in-law by the bloud of Circumcision or Feci te generum Deo I have made thee God's Son-in-law or if you like better the notion of Sponsus I have espoused thee to the Church of God by this rite of Circumcision or Thou art or Be thou espoused to the Church of God c. Thus as you see may the Formula be either way explicated to one and the same sense But the first I like the best because of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mihi the relative to Zipporah Tu mihi in generum es desponsatus circumcisioni Now thou art my Son-in-law being espoused to Circumcision Now lastly to free my Interpretation from novelty the sense I have given of these words is that which both the Septuagint and the Chaldee Paraphrast directly aim at the Paraphrast expounding it thus In sanguine circumcisionis istius datus est sponsus or gener mihi the Septuagint as we now read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stetit sanguis circumcisionis filii mei where the Text is corrupted and I believe the Septuagint translated not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sit hic sanguis circumcisionis Filii mei a Periphrastical but evident sense with the change of one letter only From the sense of this place thus proved I will point at two Observations and so conclude The First is That it is lawful to use some fitting form of words in the exhibition of a Sacrament though not expresly ordained by God at the institution thereof as appears by this Form that Zipporah used no doubt ex more according to the custom then whatsoever the Form were after that time The Second is That the neglect of the Circumcision of a child then and so consequently of Baptizing it now makes not so much the Child as the Parents liable to the wrath of God As here the Angel sought not to kill the Child who was uncircumcised but Moses the Father who should have circumcised it Both which Observations I mean to amplifie no farther but leave them to your exacter meditations and so I conclude DISCOURSE XV. EZEKIEL 20. 20. Hallow my Sabbaths and they shall be a sign between me and you to acknowledge that I Iehovah am your God THIS Commandment with the End thereof the Lord bids Ezekiel tell the Elders of Israel that he gave it to their Fathers in the Wilderness And it is recorded in the Law so that I might have taken it thence But I rather chose to make these words in Ezekiel my Text as expressed more plainly and so a Comment to those in the Law The place there is Exod. 31. 13. where this which my Text containeth is expressed thus Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations to acknowledge that I Iehovah am your sanctifier that is your God as the expression in Ezekiel tells us For to be the Sanctifier of a People and to be their God is all one whence also the Lord is so often called in Scripture the Holy One of Israel that is their Sanctifier and their God That which I intend at this time to observe from these words is the End why God commanded this Observation of the Sabbath to the Israelites to wit That thereby as by a Symbolum or Sign they might testifie and profess what God they worshipped Secondly out of this ground to shew How far and in what manner the like Observation binds us Christians who are worshippers of the same God whom the Iews worshipped though not under the same relation altogether wherein they worshipped him All Nations had something in their Ceremonies whereby they signified the God they worshipped So in those of the Celestial Gods as they termed them and those which were Deified Souls of men were differing Rites whereby the one was known from the other Those Gods which were made of men having Funeral rites in their services as Cogniâ—ances that they were Souls deceased and each of them some imitation of some remarkable passage of the Legend of their lives either of some action done by them or some accident which befel them as in the ceremonies of Osyris and Bacchus is obvious to any that reads them And indeed it is a natural Decorum for servants and vassals by some mark or cognisance to testifie who is their Lord and Master In the Revelation the worshippers of the Beast receive his mark and the worshippers of the Lamb carry his mark and his Father 's in their Fore-heads Hence came the first use of the Cross in Baptism as the mark of Christ the Deity to whom we are initiated and the same afterwards used in all Benedictions Prayers and Thanksgivings in token they were done in the name and merits of Christ crucified So that in the Primitive Church this Rite was no more but that wherewith we conclude all our Prayers and Thanksgivings when we say Through Iesus Christ our Lord and Saviour though afterward it came to be abused as almost all other Rites of Christianity to abominable Superstition To return therefore unto my Text. Agreeably to this Principle and this
though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow c. and that in Esay the last To this man will I look to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit He that killeth an ox namely otherwise is as if he slew a man he that Sacrificeth a lamb unless he comes with this disposition as if he cut off a dog's neck he that offereth an oblation as if he offered bloud he that burneth incense as if he blessed an Idol And surely he that blesseth an Idol is so far from renewing a Covenant with the Lord his God that he breaks it So did they who without conscience of Repentance presumed to come before him with a Sacrifice not procure atonement but aggravate their breach According to one of these three senses are all passages in the Old Testament disparaging and rejecting Sacrifices literally to be understood namely when men preferred them before the greater things of the Law valued them out of their degree as an antecedent duty or placed their efficacy in the naked Rite as if ought accrued to God thereby God would no longer own them for any ordinance of his nor indeed in that disguise put upon them were they I will except only one Passage out of the number which I suppose to have a singular meaning to wit that of David in the 51. Psalm v. 16 17. which the ancient translations thus express Quoniam si voluisses sacrificium dedissem utique sed holocaustis non oblectaberis vel holocaustum non acceptabis Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus c. If thou wouldst have had a Sacrifice I would have offered it but thou wilt accept no burnt-offering c. For this seems to be meant of that special case of Adulterie and Murther which David here deploreth for which Sins the Lord had provided no Sacrifice in his Law Wherefore David in this his Penitential confession tells him That if he had appointed any Sacrifice for expiation of this kind of sin he would have given it him but he had ordained none save only a broken spirit and a contrite heart which thou O God saith he wilt not despise but accept that alone for a Sacrifice in this case without which Sacrifice in no case is accepted Now out of this Discourse we are sufficiently furnished for the understanding of this Caution of Solomon in my Text Be more ready to obey than to offer the Sacrifice of fools or as the words in the Original import Be more approaching God with a purpose and resolution of obedience to his Commandments than with the Sacrifice of fools that is Have a care rather to approach the Divine Majesty with an offering of an obediential disposition than with the bare and naked Rite But the sense is still the same namely The House of God at Ierusalem was an House of sacrifice which they who came thither to worship offered unto the Divine Majesty to make way for their prayers and supplications unto him or to find favour in his sight Solomon therefore gives them here a caveat not to place their Religion either only or chiefly in the external Rite but in their readiness to hear and keep the Commandments of God without which that Rite alone would avail them nothing but be no better than the sacrifice of fools who when they do evil think they do well For without this readiness to obey this purpose of heart to live according to his Commandments God accepts of no Sacrifice from those who approach him nor will pardon their transgressions when they come before him He therefore that makes no conscience of sinning against God and yet thinks to be expiate by Sacrifice is an ignorant fool how wise and religious soever he may think himself to be or appear unto men by the multitude or greatness of his Sacrifices The reason Because the Lord requires Obedience antecedently and absolutely but Sacrifice consequently only and then too not primariò or chiefly and for it self but secondarily only as a testimony of Coutrition and a ready desire and purpose in the offerer to continue in his favour by Obedience This is Solomon's the Preacher's meaning Wherein behold as in a glass the condition of all external Service of God in general as that which he accepteth no otherwise than secondarily namely as issuing from a Heart respectively affected with that devotion it importeth For God as he is a living God so he requires a living worship But as the Body without the Soul is but a carkass so is all external and bodily worship wherein the pulse of the Heart's devotion beats not But if this be so you will say it were better to use no external worship at all of course as we do the worship of the Body in the gestures of bowing kneeling standing and the like than to incur this danger of serving God with a dead and hypocritical service because it is not like the Heart will be always duly affected when the outward worship shall be required I answer Where there is a true and real intent to honour God with outward and bodily worship there the act is not Hypocrisie though accompanied with many defects and imperfections Here therefore that Rule of our Saviour touching the greater and lesser things of the Law must have place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things that is the greater things of the Law we ought to do and not to leave the other though the lesser undone For otherwise if this reasoning were admitted a man might upon the same ground absent himself from coming to Church upon the days and times appointed or come thither but now and then alledging the indisposition of his Heart to joyn with the Church in her publick worship at other times or if he came thither act a mute and when others sing and praise God be altogether silent and not open his mouth nor say Amen when others do For all these are external services and the service of the voice and gesture are in this respect all one there is no difference But who would not think this to be very absurd We should rather upon every such occasion rouse and stir up our Affections with fit and seasonable meditations that what the order and decency of ◠Church-assembly requires to be done of every member outwardly we may likewise do devoutly and acceptably These things we ought to do and not leave the other undone But you will say What if I cannot bring my Heart unto that religious fear and devotion which the outward worship I should perform requireth I could say that some of the outward worship which a man performs in a Church-assembly he does not as a singular man but as a member of the Congregation But howsoever I answer Let the worship of thy Body in such a case be at least a confession and acknowledgment before God of that love fear and esteem of his Divine Majesty thou oughtest to have but hast not For though to come