Works

S. MATTHEW 6. 9.

IT was well hoped, after the question about the lawfulness and fitness of a set Form of Prayer had been so long debated in our Church, that the Sect of those who opposed it had been ere this well-nigh extinguished: But experience tells us the contrary, that this Fancy is not only still living, but begins, as it were, to recover and get strength afresh. In which regard my Discourse at this time will not be unseasonable, if, taking my rise from these words of our Savior, I acquaint you upon what grounds and example this practice of the Christian Church hath been established, and how frivolous and weak the Reasons are which some of late do bring against it.

To begin therefore; You see by the Text I have now read, that our Blessed Savior delivered a set Form of Prayer unto his Disciples, and in so doing hath commended the use of a set Form of Prayer unto his Church: Thus therefore (saith he) pray ye; Our Father which art in Heaven, &c.

Is not this a set Form of Prayer? and did not our Savior deliver it to be used by his Disciples? They tell us, No. For Thus, say they, in this place is not thus to be understood; but for, in this manner, to this effect or sense, or after this pattern; not in these words and syllables. To this I answer, It is true that this form of Prayer is a Pattern for us to make other Prayers by; but that this only should be the meaning of our Savior's Thus, and not the rehearsal of the words themselves, I utterly deny: and I prove it out of the eleventh Chapter of S. Luke, where the same Prayer is again delivered in these words, O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven —that is, do it in haec verba. For what other phrase of Scripture is there to express such a meaning, if this be not? Besides, in this of S. Luke the occasion would be considered. It came to pass (saith he) as Jesus was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his Disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his Disciples. From whence it may not improbably be gathered, that this was the custom of the Doctors of Israel to deliver some certain Form of Prayer unto their Disciples, to use, as it were a badge and Symbolum of their Discipleship; at least John the Baptist had done so unto his Disciples: and thereupon our Savior's Disciples besought him, that he also would give them in like manner some Form of his making, that they might also pray with their Master's spirit, as John 's Disciples did with theirs. For that either our Savior's or John 's Disciples knew not how to pray till now, were ridiculous to imagine; they being both of them Jews, who had their certain set hours of prayer, which they constantly observed, as the third, sixth and ninth. It was therefore a Form of Prayer of their Master's making, which both John is said to have given his Disciples, and our Savior's Disciples besought him to give them.

For the fuller understanding whereof, I must tell you something more, and the rather, because it is not commonly taken notice of; and that is, That this delivery of the Lord's Prayer in S. Luke is not the same with that related by S. Matthew, but another, at another time, and upon another occasion: That of S. Matthew in that famous Sermon of Christ upon the Mount, whereof it is a part; that of S. Luke upon a special motion of the Disciples at a time when himself had done praying: That of S. Matthew in the second; that of S. Luke in the third year after his Baptism. Consider the Text of both, and you shall find it impossible to bring them into one and the same. Whence it follows, that the Disciples, when it was first uttered, understood not that their Master intended it for a Form of Prayer unto them, but for a pattern or example only, or, it may be, to instruct them in special in what manner to ask forgiveness of sins. For if they had thought he had given them a Form of Prayer then, they would never have asked him for one now. Wherefore our Savior this second time utters himself more expressly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven —Thus their inadvertency becomes our confirmation: For as Joseph said to Pharaoh, The dream is doubled unto Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God; so may we say here, the delivery of this Prayer was doubled unto the Disciples, that they and we might thereby know the more certainly that our Savior intended and commended it for a set Form of Prayer unto his Church.

Thus much of that set Form of Prayer which our Savior gave unto his Disciples, as a precedent and warrant to his Church to give the like Forms to her Disciples or members; a thing which from her infancy she used to do. But because her practice is called in question, as not warranted by Scripture, let us see what was the practice of the Church of the Old Testament, than whose example and use we can have no better rule to follow in the New.

First therefore, we find two set Forms of Prayer, or Invocation, appointed by God himself in the Law of Moses. One, the Form wherewith the Priests were to bless the people: Num. 6. 23, 24, 25, 26. On this wise, saith he, shall Aaron and his sons bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee; The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Is not this a set Form of Prayer? For what is to bless, but to pray over or invocate God for another?

The second is the Form of profession and prayer to be used by him who had paid his Tithes every third year: Deut. 26. 13. O Lord God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, and fatherless, and unto the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy Commandments, nor have I forgotten them. 14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away thereof for an unclean use, &c. 15. Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the Land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest to our Fathers, a Land that floweth with milk and honey.

But what need we seek thus for scattered Forms, when we have a whole Book of them together? The Book of Psalms was the Jewish Liturgy, or the chief part of the Vocal service wherewith they worshipped God in the Temple. This is evident by the Titles of the Psalms themselves, which show them to have been commended to the several Quires in the same, To Asaph, To the sons of Korah, To Jeduthun, and almost forty of them To the Magister Symphoniae the Prefect or Master of the Music, in general. The like we are to conceive of those which have no Titles; as for example, of the 105 and 96 Psalms, which, though they have no such Inscription in the Psalmbook, yet we find 1 Chron. 16. 7. that they were delivered by David into the hands of Asaph and his Brethren for forms to thank the Lord. This a man would think were sufficient to take away all scruple in this point; especially when we ourselves, and all the Reformed Churches, use to sing the same Psalms, not only as set Forms, but set in Metre that is after a human composure. Are not the Psalms set Forms of Confession, of Prayer, and of Praising God? And in case there had been no Prayers amongst them, yet what reason could be given, why it should not be as lawful to pray unto God in a set Form, as to praise him in such a one?

What therefore do they say to this? Why, they tell us, that the Psalms are not sung in the Church unto God, but so rehearsed for instruction of the people only, namely, as the Chapters and Lessons are there read, and no otherwise. But if either we do, ought, or may sing the Psalms in the Church with the same end and purpose that the Church of the Old Testament did, (and it were absurd to say we might not,) this Exception will not subsist. For what is more certain than that the Church of Israel used the Psalms for Forms of praising and invocating God? What mean else those Forms, Cantemus Domino, Psallite Domino, Let us sing unto the Lord, and, Sing ye unto the Lord, and the like so frequent in them? But there are more direct and express testimonies. In 1 Chron. 25. 3. it is expressly said of Jeduthun and his sons, that their office was to prophesy with a Harp, to give thanks, and to praise the Lord. In the second of Chron. 30. 21. we read, that the Levites and the Priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud Instruments unto the Lord. And, as ye heard even now, out of 1 Chron. 16. David, at the time when he brought up the Ark unto Jerusalem, then first delivered the 105 and 96 Psalms into the hands of Asaph and his sons to confess or give thanks unto the Lord. And lastly, to leave no place for farther doubt, we read Ezra 3. 10, 11. that the Levites the sons of Asaph were set with Cymbals to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David King of Israel: and that they sung together by course, in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because he is good, for his mercy endureth forever. For this reason, the four and twenty Courses or Quires into which the Singers of the Temple were divided by King David to serve in their turns, consisted each of them of twelve, according to the number of the Tribes of Israel; that so every Tribe might have a mouth and voice to praise and to give thanks unto God for him in the Temple.

Thus we have seen what warrant topray and call upon God in a set Form hath from the practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament. And, if Reason may have place, in the public service of God, where one is the mouth of many, there is none so proper and convenient. For how can the Minister be said properly to be the mouth of the Congregation in prayer unto God, when the Congregation is not first made acquainted and privy to what he is to tender unto God in their names? Which in a voluntary and extemporary form of Prayer they are not, nor well can be; I am sure neither so properly nor conveniently as in a set Form, which both they and the whole Church have agreed upon, and offer unto God at the same time, though in several places, in the self-same form and words. And this may be a second Reason, I mean from Uniformity: For how can the Church, being a Mystical Body, better testify her unity before God, than in her uniformity in calling upon him? especially your Savior telling us, that if but two or three shall agree together on earth, as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done unto them of his Father which is in heaven. So prevailable with Almighty God is the power of Consent in Prayer.

LET us now, in the last place, see what Reasons they bring who contend altogether for voluntary Prayer, and would have no set Forms used.

First, they say, It is the ordinance of God, that the Church should be edified by [unspec 1] the gifts of her Ministers as well in Praying as Preaching. Ergo, their Prayers should be extemporary or voluntary; because in reading a set Form of Prayer this gift cannot be shewn.

To this I answer, First, That there is not in this point the same reason for Prayer and for Preaching: for in Prayer (I mean public) the Minister is the mouth of the Church unto God, and therefore it were convenient they should know what he puts up to God in their names; but in Preaching he is not so. Secondly, Why should not the Pastors and Ministers of the Church edify the Church by their gift of Prayer, as well in composing a set Form of Prayer for her use by general agreement, as in uttering a voluntary or extemporary Prayer in a particular Congregation? Thirdly, Are not the members of the Church to be edified as well by the spirit of the Church, as the Church or some part thereof by the spirit of a member? But how can the Church edify her members by her gift of Prayer, otherwise than by a set Form agreed upon by her consent? Fourthly, Ostentation of gifts is one thing, but Edification by them another. Ostentation of the gift of Prayer is indeed best shewn in a voluntary or extemporary Prayer; but the Church may be edified as well by a set Form. Yea such a Form in the public service of God is more edificative than a voluntary: And that, both because the Congregation is first made acquainted therewith; and secondly, because they are better secured from being engaged in ought that might be unfit to speak unto God, either for matter or manner, or such as they would not have given their consent to if they had been aware of it. For now that extraordinary assistance of the Holy Ghost, which was in the Primitive and Apostolical times, is long since ceased; and all men, to whom that office belongeth to speak to God for others, are not at all times discreet and well advised, when they speak to him at will and extempore, but subject to miscarriage. Lastly, I answer, That the Church is to be edified by the gift of her Ministers in voluntary Prayer, loco & tempore, in fit place and upon fit occasions, not in all places and upon all occasions. And thus much to this Objection.

[unspec 2] But they object secondly, That the Spirit ought to be free and unlimited, and that therefore a Book or set Form of Prayer, which limits the Spirit in praying, is not to be tolerated or used.

To this I answer, It is false, that the acting of the Spirit in one Christian may not be limited or regulated by the spirit of another; especially, the spirit of a particular man in the public worship, by the Spirit of the Church whereof he is a member. For doth not the Apostle tell us 1 Cor. 14. 29, 30. that even that extraordinary Spirit of prophecy, usual in his time, might be limited by the spirit of another Prophet? Let the Prophets, saith he, speak two or three, and let the other judge: If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. Is not this a limiting? He gives a reason v. 32. For the spirits of the Prophets, saith he, are subject to the Prophets. Besides, are not the spirits of the people as well limited and determined by a voluntary Prayer, when they join therein with their Minister, as they are by a set Form? True, the spirit of the Minister is then free; but theirs is not so, but tied and led by the spirit of the Minister as much as if he used a set Form. But to elude this, they tell us, that the Question is not of limiting the spirit of the people, but of the Minister only: For, as for the people, no more is required of them but to join with their Minister, and to testify it by saying Amen; but the spirit of the Minister ought to be left free, and not to be limited. But where is this written, that the one may not be limited as well as the other? We heard the Apostle say even now, The spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets: If in prophesying, why not in praying? And what show of Reason can be given, why the spirit of a particular Minister in the public worship of the Church may not, yea ought not to be limited and regulated by the spirit of the Church Representative, as well as the spirit of a whole Congregation by the spirit of a particular Minister? For every particular Minister is as much subordinate to the spirit of the Church Representative, as the spirit of the Congregation is to his. So much for this Objection.

[unspec 3] There remaineth yet a third, which may be answered in two or three words. No set Form of Prayer, say they, can serve for all occasions. What then? yet why may it not be used for all such occasions as it serves for? If any sudden and unexpected occasion happen, for which the Church cannot provide, the spirit of her Ministers is free: Who will forbid them to supply, in such a case, that by a voluntary and arbitrary form, which the Church could not provide for in a set Form? And this is what I intended to say of this Argument.

MATTHEW 6. 9. LUKE 11. 2.

ALthough I make no question but that which we so often repeat unto Almighty God in our daily prayers, is for the general meaning thereof by the most of us in some competent measure understood: yet because by a morefull and distinct explication the knowledge of some may be improved, and the meditations of others occasioned to a further search; I hope I shall not do amiss, nor be thought to have chosen a Theme either needless or not so fit for this Auditory, If I shall inquire What that is we pray for in this first Petition of the Prayer our Lord hath taught us, when we desire that God's Name may be sanctified: For perhaps we shall find more contained therein than is commonly taken notice of.

The words are few, and therefore shall need no other Analyse than what their very number presents unto us, viz. God's Name, and the sanctifying thereof; Sanctificetur Nomen tuum. I will begin first with the last in order, but first in nature, Nomen tuum, God's Name. By which, according to the style of Holy Scripture, we are to understand in this place, First of all, God himself, or His sacred Deity, to wit, abstractly expressed, according to the style of eminency and dignity, that is, Dei 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Divine Majesty: as we are wont for the King to say, His Majesty, or the King's Majesty, and of other persons of honor and eminency, their Highness, their Honor, his Excellency, and the like; so of God, His Name, and sometimes, with the self-same meaning, His Glory; as Ier. 2. 11. Hath any nation changed their God's, which yet are no God's? but my people have changed their Glory (that is, their God) for that which is good for naught. So Psalm 106. 20. of the Calf made in the wilderness, They changed their Glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass: And S. Paul, Rom. 1. 23. They changed the Glory (that is, the Majesty) of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, &c. Such is the notion, but much more frequent, of God's Name. In a word, Nomen Dei in this kind of use is nothing else but Divinum Numen. Whence it is that in Scripture, to call upon the Name of God, to blaspheme the Name of God, to love his Name, to swear by his Name, to build a Temple to his Name, for his Name to dwell there; and in the New Testament, to believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus, to call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus; these, I say, and the like expressions have no other meaning, than to do these things to the Divine Majesty, to the Lord Jesus, whose is that Name above every name, whereat every knee must bow. Accordingly here, Sanctisicetur Nomen tuum, Hallowed be thy Name, is as much as to say, Sanctificetur Numen tuum, Sanctified be thy Divine Majesty.

Secondly, Under the Name of God here to be sanctified or hallowed, understand, besides the Majesty of his Godhead, that also super quod invocatum est Nomen ejus, whereupon his Name is called, or that which is called by his Name, (as we in our Bibles commonly express this phrase of Scripture;) that is, all whatsoever is God's, or God is the Lord and owner of by a peculiar right; such as are Things sacred, whether they be Persons, or whether Things by distinction so called, or Times, or Places, which have upon them a relation of peculiarness towards God. For such as these are said in Scripture, to have the Name of God called upon them, or to be called by his Name; that is, to be His. Thus we read in Scripture of an House which had the Name of God upon it, or which was called by his Name, that is, God's House, 1 Kings 8. 43. Ier. 7. 10, &c. Of a City upon which the Name of God was called or named, to wit, the Holy City, Jerusalem, the City of the great King, the Lord of hosts, Ier. 25. 29. Dan. 9. 18. Of an Ark upon which the Name of God the Lord was called, 1 Chron. 13. 6. 2 Sam. 6. 2. that is, the Lord's Ark, or the Ark of his Covenant, as it is elsewhere named. Of a People upon which the Name of the Lord was called, or which were called by his Name, Deut. 28. 10. Dan. 9. 19. and elsewhere; that is, were his peculiar and holy people; as is said in like manner, and with like meaning, of the Church of the New Testament, James 2. 7. Acts 15. 17. I represent not these places of Scripture at large, because I know that every ear that is acquainted with Scripture can bear witness unto them. And for the meaning of this expression of God's Name to be called upon a thing, or a thing to be called by his Name, that it is all one as to say it to be His, (besides the evidence of the matter whereabout it is used,) appears by the same phrase used in two other places, of the like relation of men to that which is theirs: as Gen. 48. 16. where Jacob blessing Joseph 's sons saith, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, and let my name be called upon them; that is, let them be mine, namely, as Reuben and Simeon are mine, as he saith a little before; for they are words of adoption. Again, in the 4. of Isaiah 1. where it is said, that seven women should take hold of one man, and say, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel, only let thy Name be called upon us, to take away our reproach; that is, Do thou own us, or let us be thine, that it may not be a reproach unto us that we have no husband. The Ancients were wont to set the Names of the Owners upon their houses and other possessions; which they called Tituli, Titles. Chrysologus Serm. 145. Sicut dominos praediorum liminibus affixi Tituli proloquuntur, As the Titles fixed to doors do speak the owners of the possessions. S. Augustine in Psal. 21. Quando potens aliquis invenerit Titulos suos, nonne jure rem sibi vendicat, & dicit, Non poneret titulos meos, nisi res mea esset? When any great man shall spy his own Titles, does he not justly challenge the goods, and say, No man would put my Titles to it, unless the thing were mine? Whether this phrase of Scripture, of God's Name to be called or named upon a thing, hath reference unto any such custom, I cannot affirm; but surely the meaning is the same, to wit; that God is the Lord and Proprietary of them. And thus ye have heard what is this Name of God we pray here to be sanctified; to wit, a twofold Name, first, his Name and Majesty which we call upon; secondly, that also which is called by his Name: The first we may call his Personal, the other his Denominative or Participated Name.

HAVING learned what Nomen Dei importeth, and so cleared the Object of what we pray for; let us next inquire what that is which the word Sanctify, or To be sanctified, implieth, being that which our vote witnesseth ought to be done thereunto. And this I intended for the main and principal Argument of my present Discourse, being a matter not so well traced as the former, and perhaps not altogether freed of obscurity and difficulty to be understood.

For our more certain and assured discovery whereof, we will first examine the abstract thereof, Sanctity, and find out the true notion of it, namely, what is the ratio formalis, the formal state or nature of that which the Scripture entituleth in the general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Holy; not regarding what notion the Greeks or Latins had respect to in their Languages, but what the Holy Scripture properly intendeth under that name. For because to be sanctified can have but these two senses, either to be made holy, or to be used and done unto according to, or as becometh, its holiness; and that the Majesty of God, which is the prime object of this Act, is not capable of the first sense (viz. to be made holy ) but of the second only: if we therefore once rightly understand what is the condition and property of Sanctity according to the notion of Scripture, we shall not be long ignorant what it is either for the Name or Majesty of God, or that which is called by his Name, to be hallowed or sanctified, namely, to be done unto according to their Holiness.

Now R. David Kimchi upon the 56 of Isaiah, ver. 2. Blessed is the man that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, hath these words,

Thus the Rabbi. And that this which he saith is true, namely, That Sanctity consists in a discretion and distinction from other things by way of exaltation and preeminence, may appear by these instances and examples which I shall now produce out of Scripture.

And first from that Law touching the Holy oil, Exod. 30. 31. where, after the composition thereof described, This (saith the Lord) shall be an holy anointing Oil unto me. What is that? why, it follows, v. 32. Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition thereof. It is Holy, therefore it shall be Holy unto you. That is, As this Oil is holy and discrete from other Oyls, so shall it accordingly by you be used with difference and discrimination: For the Text goes on v. 33. Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or putteth any of it upon a stranger, (that is, upon any besides those it was appropriated to,) shall be cut off from his people. What else means all this, but that this Oil should be a singular or peculiar Oil, set apart and distinguished from all other Oyls both in its composition and use; and that to be such, was to be Holy or Sacred.

The like we shall find in the 35. verse of the same Chapter, concerning the Holy Persume there described: Thou shalt make it, saith he, (to wit, the ingredients he afore mentioned) a persume, a consection, after the art of the Apothecary, tempered together, pure and Holy. Verse 37. You shall not make to yourselves (that is, not for your own use) according to the composition thereof: It shall be unto thee Holy for the Lord. Ver. 38. Whosoever shall make the like unto it, to smellthereto, shall be cut off from his people.

But above all others this notion of Sanctity or Holiness is most expressly intimated and taught us in those divine Periphrases or circumlo •• tions which the Lord himself more than once makes of an Holy People: as Lev. 20. 24. speaking on this manner; I am the Lord your God which have separated you from other people. —Ver. 26. And ye shall be Holy unto me: for I the Lord am Holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. Mark here, that to separate is to make Holy; and that to be Holy is to be separated from others of the same rank. Again, Deut. 26. 18, 19. The Lord hath avouched thee (to wit, Israel) this day to be his peculiar (or appropriate) people, as he hath promised thee:—And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, in name, and in honor; namely, that thou may est be an Holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken. Now what is this but Rabbi Kim • hi 's definition almost verbatim? that to be sacred or Holy is to be separated or set apart from other things by way of excellence; or, which is all one, to be set in some state of singularity or appropriatedness, whereby it is advanced above the common condition of things of the same order. He that will, may compare also two other passages, Deut. 7. 6. & 14. 2. parallel to those I have produced; where to be an Holy, and to be a Peculiar people, are made one and the same, or the one expounded by the other.

It may be yet further confirmed by comparing Deut. 19. 2, 7. with Joshua 20. 7. For whereas in the former of these places it is said concerning the Cities of refuge, Thou shalt separate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , three Cities for thee in the midst of thy land: in Joshua, where this commandment is put in execution, we read instead of separated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. they sanctified three Cities, Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron. Where that the one is equivalent to the other, the Seventy so well understood, that even in this place of Joshua, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is, Sanctificârunt they sanctified, they rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , separârunt, or discreverunt, they separated or set apart.

The same notion of Holiness may be gathered from the Antithesis or opposite thereunto, to wit, Vnholy, or Vnclean, which the Scripture is wont to express by the name of Common. So S. Peter in his Vision, Acts 10. 14. Lord, saith he, I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For know, that because that which is Holy ought to be kept pure and clean; or rather, because Cleanness imports a separation from filth, as Holiness doth from common; thence Clean and Holy, and so also Vnholy and Vnclean, are used the one for the other: whence 1 Cor. 7. 14. Vnclean and Holy are opposed. But to go on; the voice from heaven answers S. Peter in the same language v. 15. What God hath cleansed, (that is, sanctified, ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , account not thou common. So in 1 Mac. 1. 47. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are unclean beasts; and v. 62. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to eat unclean things.

The like Antithesis of Holy and Common is to be found Heb. 10. 29. where the Apostle saith of a Believer or Christian that lives an ungodly and wicked life, He hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as a common thing; that is, he had profaned it. Our translation rendereth it an unholy thing; the opposition thereof to sanctified witnessing that to be the meaning. Now then, if to be Vnholy or Vnclean be to be Common; surely it follows by the Law of opposition, that to be Holy is to be separated from the common, or to be singular and appropriate in some manner or other.

Lastly, it is to be observed, that whereas in the Law given Numbers 6. concerning the Vow of Nazarisme (which word signifies separation, of Nazar, to separate ) the words, to separate, and separation, come very often in the Text; the vulgar Latin renders for them above ten times, consecrare, consecratio, sanctificare, and sanctificatio: which shows, that this notion, namely, that Holiness consists in a state of separation, is no new conceit, but such as Antiquity took notice of.

The nature of Holiness, wherein it consisteth, according to the idiom of Scripture, being thus found out and cleared, that which was aimed at in this inquisition, to wit, what the same meaneth by to sanctify, and to be sanctified, will be no hard matter to resolve. For Sanctity and to sanctify being Conjugates or Denominatives, as Logicians call them; the one openeth the way to the knowledge of the other. If therefore Sanctity or Holiness be a condition of discretion and distinction from other things, as we have shown it to be; then to sanctify must either be to put a thing into that state, which we call, to consecrate; or if it be such already, to use and do unto it as becomes the sanctity thereof: that is, habere cum discrimin • , to put a difference between it and other things by way of excellency, or in a dignîfying wise, by appropriating and severing it in the use thereof from things of ordinary and common rank; or, which is all one, to use it singularly, appropriately, and, in a word, uncommonly. For not to use it so, it being such, were to abuse it, which the Scripture calls to profane; to sanctify and to profane being opposites. Whence Ezek. 22. 26. to profane is expounded by not putting a difference: The Priests (saith the Lord) have violated my Law, and have profaned my holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane.

This to be to sanctify, all the places almost which I have alleged out of the Law for the notion and nature of sanctity do apparently proclaim: for the one is so nearly linked to the other, that they could not well be separated. Thus was Israel, God's holy people, to sanctify themselves by a discriminative manner of living or usance, because the Lord their God had discriminated or separated them from other people. So Lev. 20. 24, 25, 26. I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: And ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. But ye shall be holy unto me; for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

After the same manner were the Holy Ointment and the Holy Perfume or Incense to be sanctified by a discriminative, singular, appropriate usance of them, and not to be used as other Oyntments and Per • umes: to wit, the one not to be poured upon man's flesh, nor the other used for man's smelling unto; yea none of the like composition to the one or the other to be made for any profane or common use, upon pain of his being cut off from his people who should dare to do it. That is, not the particular or Individuum only, but even the whole kind of that composition was to be accounted sacred: otherwise this caution needed not; since for the Individual, all sacred things ought to be appropriate and incommunicable in their use.

And to this notion it is not altogether improbable but the Apostle may allude, 1 Cor. 11. 29. when he expresseth the profanation of the Holy Supper in coming to it, and using it as a common banquet, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not differencing the Lord's body; that is, not sanctifying it, or using it as became so holy a thing.

HITHERTO I have considered the words of my Text apart: but now let us put them again together, and see How the Name of God ought to be Sanctified in the manner now specified, both in itself, and in the things which it is called upon; as in the beginning I distinguished. For the better understanding of which, we are to take notice of a twofold Holiness; one Original, Absolute, and Essential in God; the other Derived or Relative in the things which are His, properly (according to the use of the Latin) called Sacra, Sacred things. Both these have their several and distinct Sanctifications belonging unto them. For whatsoever is Holy, ought to be sanctified, according to the condition and proportion of the Holiness it hath.

To speak of them distinctly. The first, Original or Absolute Holiness, is nothing else but the incommunicable Eminency of the Divine Majesty, exalted above all, and divided from all other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Eminencies whatsoever. For that which a man takes to be, and makes account of as, his God, (whether it be such indeed, or by him fancied only) he ascribes unto it, • in so doing, a condition of Eminency above, and distinct from all other Eminencies whatsoever, that is of Holiness. Hence it comes that we find the Lord the God of Israel, and the only true God, in Scripture so often styled Sanctus Israelis, the Holy One of Israel, that is, Israel 's most Eminent and Incommunicable One, or, which is all one, His God: as namely Psal. 89. 18. The Lord is our defense, the HOLY ONE of Israel is our King. Isaiah 17. 7. At that day shall a man look unto his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the HOLY ONE of Israel. Habak. 1. 12. Art not thou from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine HOLY ONE? Agreeably whereunto the Lord is said also now and then to swear by his HOLINESS, that is, by Himself: as in the Psalm before alleged v. 35. Once have I sworn by my HOLINESS, that I will not lie unto David, &c. Amos 4. 2. The Lord God hath sworn by his HOLINESS, that lo, the days shall come upon you that he will take you away with hooks, &c. According to this sense I suppose also that of Amos 8. 7. is • to be understood; The Lord hath sworn by the Excellency of Jacob (that is Jacob 's most Eminent and Incommunicable One, or by Jacob's HOLY ONE) Surely I will never forget any of their works, &c. For indeed the God's of the Nations were not properly and truly Holy, because but partially and respectively only; forasmuch as the Divine eminency which they were supposed to have was, even in the opinion of those who worshipped them, common to others with them, and so not discriminated from, nor exalted above all: But the God of Israel was simply and absolutely such, both in himself and to them-ward who worshipped him, as who might acknowledge no other; and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and by way of distinction from all other God's, called Sanctus Israelis, The Holy One of Israel; that is, that sole absolute and only incommunicable One, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as the Author of the Book of Wisdom calls him, chap. 14. 21.) That God exalted above all, and divided from all, without pareil; there being no other such besides him. There is none holy as the Lord, (saith Hannah) for there is none besides thee; [Lxx. none Holy besides thee;] neither is there any Rock like our God. Wherefore it is to be observed, that although the Scripture everywhere vouchsafes the Gentiles Daemons the name of God's; yet it never, I think, calls them Holy Ones, as indeed they were not. Thus you see that as Holiness in general imports a state of eminency and separation; so this of God, as I have described it, disagrees not from that general notion, when I affirm it to consist in a state of peerless or incommunicable Majesty: for that which is such, includes both the one and the other. But would you understand it yet better? Apply it then to his Attributes whereby he is known unto us, and know that The Lord is Holy, is as much as to say, He is a Majesty of peerless Power, of peerless Wisdom, of peerless Goodness, and so of the rest. Such a one is our God, and such is his Holiness.

Now then to Sanctify this peerless Name or Majesty of his must be by doing unto him according to that which his Holiness challengeth in respect of the double importance thereof: namely, to serve and glorify him, because of his Eminency; and to do it with a singular, separate, and incommunicated worship, because he is Holy. Not to do the former is Irreligion and Atheism, as not to acknowledge God to be the Chief and Sovereign Eminency; not to observe the second is Idolatry. For as the Lord our God is a singular and peerless Majesty, distinguished from and exalted above all things and eminencies else whatsoever; so must his Worship be singular, incommunicable, and proper to him alone. Otherwise, (saith Ioshnah to the people) Ye cannot serve the Lord. Why? For (saith he) He is an Holy God, He is a jealous God, (that can endure no corrival,) He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. I • ye forsake the Lord and serve strange gods, &c.

Whence in Scripture, those who communicate the Worship given unto him with any besides him, or together with him, by way of Object, that is, whether immediately or but mediately, are deemed to deny his incomparable Sanctity, and therefore said to profane his Holy Name. See Ezek. 20. 39. and chap. 43. 7, 8. Levite. 18. 21.

In a word; All that whole immediate Duty and Service which we ow unto God, whether inward or outward, contained under the name of Divine Worship, (when either we confess, praise, pray unto, call upon or swear by his Name) yea all the Worship both of men and Angels, is nothing else but to acknowledge in thought, word and work, this peerless preeminence of his Power, of his Wisdom, of his Goodness and other Attributes, that is, His Holiness; by ascribing and giving unto him that which we give and ascribe to none besides him, that is, to sanctify his most Holy Name. This is that the Holy Ghost would teach us, when describing how the Seraphims worship and glorify God, Isaiah 6. 3. he brings them in crying one unto another, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory; that is, Sanctifying him. From whence is derived that which we repeat every day in the Hymn, To thee all Angels cry aloud, the heavens and all the powers therein; To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Sabbath; Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of thy Glory.

And because the pattern of God's holy worship is not to be taken from Earth, but from Heaven; the same Spirit therefore in the Apocalypse expresseth the Worship of God in the New Testament with the same form of hallowing or holying his Name which the heavenly Host useth. For so the four Animalia, representing the Catholic Church of Christ in the four quarters of the world, are said when they give glory, honor and thanks to him that sitteth upon the throne and liveth forever and ever, to do it by singing day and night this Trisagium, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come: that is, the sum of all that they did was but to agnize his Sanctity or Holiness, or, which is all one, to Sanctify his holy Name. When therefore the same four Animalia are afterwards brought in chanting, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing; and again, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever: all is to be understood as comprehended within this general Doxology, as being but an exemplification thereof; and therefore the Elogies or blazons mentioned therein, to be taken, according to the style of Holiness, in an exclusive sense, of such prerogatives as are peculiar to God alone.

And according to this notion of sanctifying God's Name which I contend for, would the Lord have his Name sanctified, Esa. 8. 12, 13. when he saith, Fear ye not their Fear (that is, the Idolaters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or God's; for so Fear here signifies, to wit, the thing feared) neither dread ye it: but sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, and let him be your Fear, and let him be your Dread, that is, your God.

Again chap. 29. 23. They shall sanctify my Name, (saith he) even sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. The latter words show the meaning of the former.

The like we have in the first Epistle of S. Peter chap. 3. verse. 14, 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i. Gentilium ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Fear ye not their Fear, nor be in dread thereof: (that is, Fear not nor dread ye the God's of the Gentiles which persecute you) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, that is, Fear and worship him with your whole hearts. For that this passage (howsoever we are wont to expound it) ought to be construed in the same sense with that of Isaiah 8. before alleged, and the words to be rendered suitably, I take it to be apparent for this reason, because they are verbatim taken from thence; as he that shall compare the Greek words of S. Peter with the Lxx. in that place of Isaiah, will be forced to confess.

Besides this evident and express use of the word Sanctify, in the notion of religious and holy worship and fear of the Divine Majesty, there is yet another expression sometimes used in Holy Scripture which implieth the self-same thing; that, namely, to worship God with that which we call holy and divine worship, is all one with to agnize his holiness, or to sanctify his Name. Those speeches, I mean, wherein we are exhorted to worship the Lord, because he is Holy. As Psal. 99. 5. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is Holy. Again, in the end of the Psalm, Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the Lord our God is Holy. The same meaning is yet more emphatically expressed by those that sing the Song of victory over the Beast, Apoc. 15. 3, 4. Great (say they) and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of Nations. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy Name? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (for that I believe is the true reading, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) thou only art Holy; therefore all the Nations shall come and worship before thee: that is, they shall relinquish their Idols and plurality of God's, and worship thee as God only. For this was the Doctrine both of Moses in the Old Testament, and of Christ Jesus the Lamb of God in the New; That one God only, that made the heaven and the earth, was to be acknowledged and worshipped, and with an incommunicable worship. In respect whereof, as I take it, these Victors are there said to sing the Song of Moses, and the Lamb, that is, a gratulatory Song of the worship of one God, after that his Ordinances were made manifest. For otherwise the Ditty is borrowed from the 86. Psalm, the 8, 9, and 10. verses, where we read, Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works like unto thy works. All Nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy Name. For thou art great, and dost wondrous works: Thou art God alone; that is, Thou only art Holy. Compare Ier. 10. ver. 6, 7.

I have one thing more to add before I finish this part of my Discourse, lest I might leave unsatisfied that which may perhaps seem to some to weaken this my explication of the sanctification of God's Name. For the word, to sanctify, or be sanctified, is sometimes used of God in a more general sense than that I have hitherto specified, namely, as signifying any way to be glorified, or to glorify; as when he saith, He will be sanctified in the destruction of his enemies, or in the deliverance of his people, and that before the Heathen, and the like; that is, he would purchase him glory, or be glorified thereby. I answer, It is true, that to be sanctified is in these passages to be glorified; but yet always to be glorified as God, and not otherwise. Namely, when God by the works of his Power, of his Mercy, or Justice extorts from men the confession of his great and holy Godhead, he is then said to sanctify, or make himself to be sanctified amongst them, that is, to be glorified and honored by their conviction and acknowledgment of his Power and Godhead. For although men may be also said to glorify, or purchase honor unto themselves, when by their noble acts they make their abilities and worth known unto the world: yet, for such respect, to be said to be sanctified, is peculiar unto him alone whose Glory is his Holiness, that is, unto God.

THUS we have learned How the Name or Majesty of God is to be sanctified personally or in itself; which is the chiefest thing we pray for, and ought so to be in our endeavor; namely, To worship and glorify him incommunicably, according to his most eminent and unparalleled Holiness: and so, ô Lord, Hallowed be thy Name. But there is another Sanctification or Hallowing of God's Name yet behind, which must be joined therewith; which is, To sanctify him also in the things which have his Name upon them, that is, are separate and dedicate to his service, or, in a word, which are His, namely, by a peculiar relation. For otherwise it is true, The whole earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof, the World and those that dwell therein. But there are some things His not as other things are, and so as they are no longer Ours; such as according to the style of Scripture (as I have already noted) are said to be called by his Name, or to have his Name called upon them. These are things sacred. Therefore I told you before of a twofold Sanctity or Holiness: the one Original, Absolute, and Essential in God; the other Derived or Relative, in that which is set apart to be in a peculiar and appropriate manner His. For whatsoever belongeth unto him in this manner, is divided from other things with preeminence, whether they be Things or Persons which are so separated. For in such separation we shown the nature of Sanctity in general to consist. Now as the Divine Majesty itself is separate and holy; so know, it is a part of that honor we owe unto his most Sacred Name, that the Things whereby and wherewith he is served should not be promisenous and common, but appropriate and set apart to that sacred end. It is an honor which in some degree of resemblance we afford unto Kings, Princes, and other persons of dignity, (of infinite less eminency than God is) to interdict the use of that to others which they are wont to use; sometimes the whole kind, sometimes the individual only. As we know in former times, to wear purple, to subscribe with the Ink called Encaustum, of a purple color, and other the like, which the diligent may find were appropriate to the use of Kings and Emperors only. In the Book of the Kings we read of the King's Mule, so appropriate to his use, as to ride upon him was to be made King, 1 Kings 1. 33, 44. In the Book of Esther, Chap. 6. 8. of the Horse that King Ahasucrus used to ride upon, put in the same rank with the Crown and royal apparel, which none but the King might wear. And of individual Utensils thus appropriated, and as it were dedicated to the alone use of persons of eminency, our own times want not examples. Whence natural Instinct may seem to prompt unto us, that such appropriation is a testimony of honor and respect. Sure I am, that Almighty God hath revealed it to be a part of that Honor we owe unto him. Thus all the Utensils of the Tabernacle and Temple were sacred and set apart to that use; and not the Utensils of the Altar only, but even the Instruments of Music, which David ordained to praise the Lord with in the Temple, were not common, but consecrated unto God for that end: whence they are called, 1 Chron. 16. 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Instrumenta musica Dei, the musical Instruments of God, that is, sacred ones, and 2 Chron. 7. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the musical Instruments of the Lord. Agreeably whereunto those who sung the fore-alleged song of victory over the Beast are said to have had in their hands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the harps of God, that is, not profane or common, but sacred Harps, the Harps of the Temple; for there they sung this their Anthem, standing upon the great Laver or Sea of glass which was therein.

Nay, our Blessed Savior, Mark 11. 16. would not suffer a profane or common vessel to be so much as carried through his Father's House, accounting it as great a profanation as to buy and sell there. And yet was not this abuse (which is a thing well to be marked) within those Septs of the Temple which the Jews accounted sacred, but in the outmost Court called Atrium gentium & immundorum, the place whither, together with such as were unclean, the Gentiles and uncircumcised were admitted to pray; as that of the Prophet cited by our Savior, rightly rendered, intimates, My house shall be called a house of Prayer, to (or for ) ALL NATIONS. Consider Isaiah 56. 6, 7. This Court therefore the Jews made no other account of than as of a profane place: but our Savior proved by Scripture, that this Gentiles Oratory was also part of his Father's house, and accordingly not to be profaned with common use. Lastly, There was never any age of the Christian Church (till of late) wherein it was not commonly believed, that God was to be honored by such appropriation or consecration as we speak of; that is, that God's Name was in this manner to be sanctified. But are there any (will you say) now that deny it? Yes, there are some in our age so far carried away into a contrary extreme to that they fly from, that they hold no oblation or consecration of things unto God by the devotion of men in the New Testament, whether of Utensils, Goods, Times, or Places, ought to be esteemed lawful; but that all distinction between sacred and profane in external things by virtue of such consecration (excepting only the Sacraments) is flat superstition. Yet to him that seriously considers it, it cannot choose, methinks, but seem strange and absurd to affirm, (as this assertion doth,) that men now in the time of the Gospel are exempted and freed from agnizing God to be Lord of the creature, by giving some part thereof unto him; than which no part of Divine Worship is more natural, and which hath been used by mankind ever since the beginning of the world. Yea, in the state of Paradise, among all the Trees in the Garden, which God gave man freely to enjoy, one Tree was Noli me tangere, and reserved to God as Holy, in token he was Lord of the Garden. So that the first sin of Mankind, for the species of the fact, was Sacrilege, in profaning that which God had made holy.

They say, It is true, that in the Old Testament this way of honoring and acknowledging God was warranted by the Divine Law; but in the New we find no precept given concerning it, nor confirmation of that which was before. Now God is not to be worshipped with any worship but what he hath himself prescribed in his Word. I answer, What though there be no particular precept in the New Testament for this, no more than for divers other duties which a Christian is bound to? yet if a general warrant be, the particular needs not. But our Savior saith in his Gospel, in that Evangelical Sermon he preached upon the Mount, that he came not to dissolve the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil and perfect them: Think not (saith he ) that I am come to dissolve the Law and the Prophets, [that is, to take away the obligation of that Rule of the duty of man to God and his neighbor, given first by Moses in the Law, and afterwards repeated and inculcated by the Prophets; for so Prophets are here to be understood, and not of predictions] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but to fulfil them, that is, to supply, accomplish, or perfect those Rules and Doctrines of Just 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 Savior, 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 Savior 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 honor God by an oblation of his creature is no part of the Law here confirmed by our Savior, 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 Savior 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 ourselves from the tie of that way of agnizing and honoring 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 behooveth 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 empty.—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-men's, that so even the offerings may show forth the tokens of freedom. — Now where in Scripture he believed this doctrine 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 adds; Necesse fuit auferre quidem vincula servitutis quibus jam homo assueverat, & sine vinculis sequi Deum; superextendi vero 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 increased, lest that drawing backward he might appear unworthy of him that freed him.—And for this reason our Lord, instead of, Thou shalt not commit adultery, commands not so much as to lust; instead of, Thou shalt not kill, not so much as to be angry; instead 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 Savior'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. 'It is witnessed by the Fathers of those first Ages generally. Whereupon the same Irenaeus also affirmeth, that our Savior 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 honor come of thee —Ergo, because all things come of the • of thine own have we given thee: so do Christ's redeemed, in their Evangelical S ••• , Apoc. 5. ascribe no less unto him, saying, v. 12. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. Yea, the 24. Elders, which are the Christian Presbytery, expressing (ch. 4. 11.) the very argument and sum of that Hymnologie which the Primitive Church used at the offering of Bread and Wine for the Eucharist, worship God, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created.

TAKING therefore for granted that which the Practice of the Church of God in all ages, yea, I think, I may say the Consent of mankind from the beginning of the world, beareth witness to; that among those duties of the Sanctification of God's Name, wherewith his Divine Majesty is immediately and personally glorified, (of which I have before spoken) this is one, and a principal one, to agnize and confess his peerless Sovereignty and dominion over the creature, by yielding him some part thereof toward his worship and service, of which we renounce the propriety ourselves; and that accordingly there are both Things and Persons now in the Gospel (as well as were before the Law was given) in this manner lawfully and acceptably set apart and separated, by the devotion of men, unto the Divine Majesty, and consequently relatively Holy (which is nothing else but to be God's by a peculiar right:) I say, that these are likewise to be done to according to their degree of sanctity, in honor of him whose they are: not to be worshipped with divine worship, or the worship which we give unto God, communicated to them; (far be it from us to defer to any creature the Honor due unto the Divine Majesty, either together with him, or without him;) but yet habenda cum discrimine, to be regarded with a worthy and discriminative usance, that is, used with a select and differing respect from other things: as namely, if Places, not as other places; if Times, not as other times; if Things by way of distinction so called, not as other things; if Persons set apart unto the service and worship of God, neither to be used by others, nor they to carry themselves in their fashion of life, as other persons, (for that which in other things sacred is their use, in persons sacred is their conversation, demeanour or carriage of themselves;) But all to be sanctified with a select, appropriate, or uncommon usage; that as they are God's by peculiar relation, and have his Name called upon them; so to be separate, as far as they are capable, from common use, and employed as instruments and circumstances of his worship and service: which is the highest and most singular honor that any creature is capable of. Nay, (as I have said before) even this is to the honor of God, That as himself is that singular, incommunicable and absolutely Holy One, and his service and worship therefore incommunicable; so should that also which hath his Name thereon, or is coasecrated to his service, be in some proportion incommunicably used, and not promiscuously and commonly, as other things are. They are the words of Maimonides the Jew, but such as will not misbecome a Christian to make use of, concerning that Law, Levite. 5. 15. If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring unto the Lord for his • respass a Ram, &c.

Yea, it is a thing worthy to be taken special notice of, that that so presumptuous and most dreadfully vindicated sin of Korah, Dathan, Abiram and their company, in offering Incense unto the Lord, being not called thereunto, did not discharge their Censers of this discriminative respect due unto things Sacred. For thus the Lord said unto Moses, after that fire from heaven had consumed them for their impiety, Speak unto Eleazar the Son of Aaron the Priest, that he take up the Censers out of the burning, and scatter thou the fire yonder; for they are hallowed: The Censers of these Sinners against their own souls; let them make them broad plates for a covering of the Altar: for they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed, or holy.

Now that by this discriminative usance or sanctification of Things sacred the Name of God is honored and sanctified, according to the tenor of our petition, is apparent, not only from Reason, which tells us that the honor and respect had unto ought that belongs unto another, because it is his, redounds unto the owner and Master; but from Scripture, which tells us that by the contrary use of them his Name is profaned. Hear himself, Lev. 22. 2. Speak unto Aaron (saith he) and his sons, that they separate themselves from the Holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my Holy Name in the things which they hallow unto me. Also in the Chapter next before, v. 6. the Priest that should not discriminate himself according to those singular observations or differing rules there prescribed him, is said to profane the Name of his God. Again, Ezek. 22. 26. when the Priests profaned God's holy things, by putting no difference between the Holy and Profane; I (saith the Lord) am profaned amongst them. Likewise chap. 43. 7. Together with other abominations there mentioned, the Lord saith, that his Holy Name had been polluted, or profaned, by the carcasses of their Kings, that is, of Manasseh and Amon, buried in the King's Garden hard by the walls of the Temple: for so by the Hebrews and others that place is understood. See 2 Kings 21. 18, 26. By the pollution of the Temple the Lord esteemed his own Name profaned. Take in also, if you will, that of Malachi ch. 1. where the Lord says of those who despised and dishonored his Table or Altar, by offering thereon for sacrifice the lame, blind, and sick, which the Law had made unclean and polluted, that they had profaned his Holy Name. But if the Name of God be profaned by the disesteem and misusage of the things it is called upon; then surely it is sanctified when the same are worthily and discriminatively used, that is, as becometh the relation they have to him.

I HAVE already specified the several Kinds of Sacred things which are thus to be sanctified: yet lest something contained under some of them might not be taken notice of by so general an intimation, it will not be amiss a little more fully and particularly to explicate them than I have yet done. Remember therefore that I ranged all Sacred things under four heads. First, of Persons Sacred; such as were the Priests and Levites in the Old Testament, and now in the New the Christian Clergy or Clerus, so called from the beginning of Christian Antiquity, either because they are the Lord's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Portion, which the Church dedicateth unto him out of herself, (namely, as the Levites were an offering of the Children of Israel, which they offered unto him out of their Tribes,) or because their inheritance and livelihood is the Lord's portion. I prefer the first; yet either of both will give their Order the title of Holiness, as doth also more especially their descent which they derive from the Apostles, that is, from those for whom their Lord and Master prayed unto his Father, saying, Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] Sanctisie them unto, or for, thy Truth: thy Word is Truth; that is, Separate them unto the Ministry of thy Truth, the word of thy Gospel, which is the truth and verification of the promises of God. It follows, As thou hast sent me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world, (this is the key which unlocks the meaning of that before and after.) And for them I sanctify myself, that they might be sanctified for thy Truth; that is, And forasmuch as they cannot be consecrated to such an Office without some sacrifice to atone and purify them, therefore for their consecration to this holy function of ministration of the new Covenant, I offer myself a Sacrifice unto thee for them, in lieu of those legal and typical ones wherewith Aaron and his sons first, and then the whole Tribe of Levi, were consecrated unto thy service in the old. An Ellipsis of the first Substantive in Scripture is frequent. So here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 only is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Truth, for the Ministry of Truth.

Now that the Christian Church (for of the Jewish I shall need say nothing) hath always taken it for granted, that those of her Clergy ought, according to the separation and sanctity of their Order, to be distinguished and differenced from other Christians, both passively in their usance from others, but especially actively, by a restrained conversation and peculiarness in their manner of life, is manifest by her ancient Canons and Discipline. Yea, so deeply hath it been rooted in the minds of men, that the Order of Church-men binds them to some differing kind of conversation and form of life from the Laity; that even those who are not willing to admit of the like discrimination due in other things, have still in their opinions some relick thereof remaining in this, though perhaps not altogether to be acquitted of that imputation which Tertullian charged upon some in his time, to wit, Quum excellimur & inflamur adversùs Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes Sacerdotes; quia Sacerdotes nos Deo & Patri fecit. Quum ad peraequationem Disciplinae Sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus insulas, & impares sumus. When we vaunt and are puffed up against the Clergy, then we are all one, then we are all Priests; for he made us Priests to God and his Father. But when we are called upon to equal in our lives the example of Priestly Discipline, then down go our Mi • res, and we are another sort of men.

Another sort of things Sacred which I named, was Sacred Places, to wit, Churches and Oratories, as the Christian name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 implieth them to be, that is, the Lord's. A third, Sacred Times, that is, dedicated and appointed for the solemn celebration of the worship of God, and Divine duties: such are with us (for those of the Jews concern us not) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , our Lord's days, with other our Christian Festivals and Holy-days. Of the manner of the discrimination from common, or sanctifying both the one and the other, by actions some commanded, others interdicted to be done in them, the Canons and Constitutions of our Church will both inform and direct us. For holy Times and holy Places are Twins, ( Time and Place being, as I may so speak, pair-circumstances of action;) and therefore Lev. 19. 30. and again 26. 2. they are joined together, tanquam ejusdem rationis, Keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuary.

The fourth sort of Sacred things is of such as are neither Persons, Times nor Places, but Things in a special sense, by way of distinction from them. And this sort containeth under it many particulars, which may be specified after this manner.

1. Sacred Revenues of what kind soever: which in regard of the dedication thereof, as they must not be profaned by sacrilegious alienation, so ought they to be sanctified by a different use and employment from other Goods; namely such a one as becometh that which is the Lord's, and not man's. For that Primitive Christian Antiquity so esteemed them, appears by their calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as they did their Place of Worship 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and their Holy day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all of the Lord, as it were Christening the old notion of Sacred by a new name. So Can. Apostol. XL. Manifestae sint Episcopy res propriae (si quidem res habet proprias & manifesta sint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. res Dominicae—Let it be manifest what things are the Bishop's own, (if he have any things of his own,) and let it be manifest what things are the Lord's. Author constitut. Apost. Lib. 2. c. 28. all. 24. Episcopus ne utatur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Dominicis rebus, tanquam alienis aut communibus, sed moderate—Let not the Bishop use the things that are the Lord's, as if they were another's or as if they were common, but moderately and soberly. See also Balsamon in Can. 15. Concilii Ancyrani, and the Canon itself.

2. Sacred Utensils, as the Lord's Table, Vessels of ministration, the Books of God, or Holy Scripture, and the like. Which that the Church, even in her better times. respected with an holy and discriminative usance, may be learned from the story of that calumnious crimination devised by the Arian Faction against Athanasius, as a charge of no small impiety, namely, that in his Visitation of the Tract of Marcotis, Macarius one of his Presbyters, by his command or instinct, had entered into a Church, of the Miletian Schismatics, and there broken the Chalice or Communion-Cup, thrown down the Table, and burnt some of the Holy Books. All which argues that, in the general opinion of Christians of that time, such acts were esteemed profane and impious; otherwise they could never have hoped (as they did) to have blas • ed the reputation of the holy Bishop by such a slander.

Touching the Books of God, or Holy Scripture, (which I referred to this Title) especially those which are for the public service of God in the Church, I add this further; That under that name I would have comprehended the senses, words and phrases appropriated to the expression of Divine and Sacred things; which a Religious ear cannot endure to hear abused with profane and scurrilous application.

3. Under this fourth head of Things Sacred I comprehend Sacred Acts; such as are the Acts of God's holy worship and administration of his Sacraments. For albeit these Acts are duties of the first and personal Sanctification of God's Name, whereof the immediate object is God; yet are the Acts themselves Sacred things, and therefore have some sanctification due to them also, as other Sacred things have: of which although it be most true that the unseigned devotion of the Heart (as before him who alone knoweth the Hearts of the children of men) be the main and principal requisite; yet unless, even in the outward performance, they be for the manner and circumstances discriminated from common acts by a select accommodation befitting their holiness, their sanctification is defective, and by such defect, if voluntary, God's Name is profaned, even then when we are worshipping him. How much more when our carriage therein cometh short even of that wonted reverence wherewith we come before an earthly Potentate? May not God here justly use the same expostula • ion with us, that he did with those in the Prophet Malachi, who presented themselves before him with such an offering as was, in regard of the blemishes, unworthy of and unbefitting so great a Majesty, and therefore to be accounted rather an affront than an act of honor and worship? Ye have, saith he, despised and profaned my Name—Offer it now unto thy Governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person?—yet I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts. And this is the document or lesson which this place naturally and unavoidably ministereth to us; That to come before the Divine Majesty with less reverent and regardful deportment than we do before earthly Kings and Potentates, is to despise and profane his holy Name. And not that, which some would shelter under this Text, and lean too much upon; namely, That the Acts of God's external worship ought to be wholly conform to the use of the semblable actions performed unto men, and not differ from them; and upon this ground charge the Christian Liturgies with absurdity in their forms of praying and praising God with responsals, singing by turns, and speaking many together. For this principle is directly repugnant to the nature of Sanctification, which consists in discrimination and difference. And therefore, though the material of our gestures and other expressions, vocal or visible, be borrowed from the use and custom of men; yet for the formality of them, not only they may, but ought to be differenced from them. Moreover, touching this reproof of the Prophet, take notice that it is grounded upon the Law, Levite. 22. where we are taught, that when that is not observed concerning the Rites of God's service which the Sanctity of them requireth, as in other particulars, so in this of a not defective or unblemished offering, his Name is thereby profaned. See verse 32. with the rest of the Chapter foregoing it. And if so, then by the contrary it is sanctified.

Lastly, Unto this head of Sacred Acts I reduce Oaths and sacred Covenants, that is, such as are made either with God, or between men, God's Name being called upon; which therefore 1 Sam. 20. 8. are styled Covenants of the Lord. For that the observance due touching both is a sanctifying of them, as things upon which the Name of the Lord is called, is apparent; forasmuch as when they are violated by falsehood they are said to be profaned, as Levite. 19. 12. Psalm 55. 20. Ier. 34. 15, 16.

Thus, together with my Explication of these several sorts of Sacred Things, I have briefly and in general pointed at that also wherein the proper Sanctification of each consisteth: which though far short of such a tractation as the matter requireth; yet if it may serve only but to give occasion to others, who are better able, to bend their thoughts upon this Argument (which perhaps the Times call for,) I shall fully attain the end I aimed at. For mine own part, to descend to particulars would be a task too high for me, and (as I suspect) not very acceptable. For it is ten to one (if the grounds I have laid be true) but that the most of us would be found faulty in some things, and some of us in all. Well, the sum of my argumentation hath been this; Is there anything in the New Testament God's by a peculiar right? To say there is not, is absurd, and against the perpectual tradition of Christianity. If there be, then it is holy; if holy, then to be sanctified; if sanctified, then to be discriminated in the usance and respect thereof from that which is of common condition.

NOW out of this Discourse which I have hitherto made you may see and take notice, that (contrary to the vulgar opinion) the Prohibition of Idolatry, and the discriminative observance of things sacred, not to profane them by a promiscuous and common use, are derived both of them from one and the same principle, namely, God's Incommunicableness, which derives a shadow and resemblance upon the things which have his Name called upon them, to wit, a sta • e of appropriateness and singularity. Wherefore the Apostle, Rom. 2. 22. not without good reason, compares together the transgressions of the one and the other kind, as parallel sins or sins of affinity: Thou that hatest Idols, (saith he) dost thou commit Sacrilege? Where by Sacrilege understand not only the usurpation of things sacred, but the violation of that which is sacred in general. And it is as if he had said, Thou hast mended the matter well indeed; for still thou dashest against the same principle. For it is one of the exemplifications of that he saith in the beginning of the Chapter: He that judgeth or condemneth another, and doth the same or the like himself, is inexcusable. By this it appears how much they are mistaken who, under pretence of avoiding Idolatry and Superstition; cannot endure that any distinction should be made between things Sacred and Common. Is not this to unhallow God's Name one way, that so we might not profane it another? Far be it from me to be a patron of Idolatry or Superstition in the least degree: yet I am afraid lest we, who have reformed the worship of God from that pollution, (and blessed be his name therefore,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as S, Basil speaks, that is, by bending the crooked stick too much the other way, have run too far into the contrary extreme, and taken away (some of us) all difference in a manner between Sacred and Profane; and by this our transgression in doing God's work made our selves liable to that upbraid of the Apostle, In qui idola abominaris, sacrilegium admittis? Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege? that is, profanest thou God's Name by violating that which is sacred?

Let no man think it strange or incredible that such an enormity should be committed, or an occasion at least given thereof, in the manage of so holy and glorious a work; seeing the experience of all ages sufficiently witnesseth how prone the nature of man is, in flying one extreme, to run too far towards the other. Why then should we think it unlikely, or rather not think it very likely, that we also may have miscarried in the same manner? unless we will arrogate unto ourselves that privilege of infallibility and freedom from error, which we condemn as intolerable presumption in our Adversaries.

Besides, it is to be taken notice of, because of the prejudicate misprision of many to the contrary, That the measure of Truth and Falsehood, Best and Worst, is not the greater or lesser distance from Popery, (forasmuch as Popery also containeth much of Christianity;) nor that which is most destructive of the Man of Sin, always most warrantable and safe to be embraced. If it were, there be some in the world (whose religion we would be loath to admit of) that would be found more orthodox and better reformed Christians than any of us all.

Nay, give me leave, without offense, for the better awakening of some out of their deafness to whatsoever else may be said to this purpose, to propound such a Demand as this; Who knoweth whether this transgression I speak of be not a main and principal ingredient of that guilt which the Divine Majesty admonisheth us to take notice of in this his so long and so severe visitation of our neighbors and brethren? whether he doth not visibly, or, if some passages be considered, almost vocally, upbraid them, Thou that hatest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege? I know right well, that rashly to assign the particular causes of God's judgments, without rule or precedent of Scripture, is a sin of presumption, and a bold intrusion into God's secrets; and therefore I affirm not, but demand only, whether there be not here some cause which may minister such a suspicion. But whatsoever it be, the compassion of their woeful affliction calls upon me rather to pray for them, than to follow this harsh and unpleasant passage any further. Only thus much, If that which the Apostle saith in particular of the things which befell the Israelites, God's first people, in the Wilderness, These things happened unto them for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come, if this be to be extended also unto those punishments and their analogy which besel them afterwards; then may perhaps two things further not unseasonably be inquired into. First, For what other sins it is remembered in Scripture that God gave his people, during that his first Covenant, (especially after they came to dwell in their own Land) under the sword of an external enemy, or his worship thereby at any time to be trodden underfoot, besides these two, Idolatry, and Prophanation of that which was holy, or Sacrilege. Examples of the first who knows not? Of the second, see the Story of Achan, Josh. 7. of Eli'sons, 1 Sam. 2. the punishment of the Sacrilege of the seventh or Sabbatical year, 2 Chron. 36. and the parallel places; for by the Law every seventh year, not only the whole Land, but all servants and debts were holy unto the Lord, and therefore to be released, Lev. 25. 2, 4. Deut. 15. Exod. 21. Secondly, What was that Transgression, after the return from Babylon, mentioned in that Prophesy of Antiochus Epiphanes, Dan. 8. 12. for which it is there foretold, that An host should be given him against the daily Sacrifice, and that it should cast down the truth unto the ground, and practice and prosper. Perhaps the Story in the 2, 3, and 4. Chap. of the second Book of Maccabees will tell us.

To that which is commonly alleged, That such distinction and reverent regard of things Sacred as we contend for, opens a way for Idolatry; I answer, No otherwise than the eschewing of Idolatry may also, through the preverseness of men, be made a bridge to profaneness, that is, by accident, not from its own towardness, but our distemper. Otherwise this Discrimination or Distinction, if we would understand or heed the ground thereof, prompts the clean contrary. For we should reason thus: If the things which are God's, eo nomine, in that name and because they are His, are therefore to be held segregate in their use; then surely God himself, who is the Fountain of Holiness, ought to have a prerogative of segregation in the most eminent and absolute manner; namely, such an one, as that the worship due unto him must not be communicated with anything else besides him. And indeed, unless both be done, God's Name is neither fully nor rightly sanctified.

AND here I should now make an end, but that there is one thing yet behind of principal consequence, which I have deferred hitherto, because I could not elsewhere bring it in conveniently without somewhat disturbing the coherence of my Discourse. There is an eminent species or kind of Sanctification which I may seem all this while to have neglected, forasmuch as it seemeth not to be comprehended under this notion of discretion and separation, wherein I place the nature of Holiness; and that is Sanctification, or Holiness of life. To which I answer, That all notions of Sanctity and Sanctification in Scripture are derived from discretion and separation, and that this now mentioned is likewise derived thence. For it is to be reduced to the Sanctification of Persons Sacred and set apart unto God. By which though in the strict and proper sense are intended only Priests and such as minister about Holy things; yet in a larger sense, and, as it were, by way of resemblance, the whole body of the People of God are a Royal Priesthood, and Holy Nation, which the Almighty hath selected unto himself out of the rest of the world, and set apart to serve him in a peculiar and different manner from the rest of men: For you have heard it is a requisite of that which is Holy, to be used in a peculiar and singular manner, and not as things common. Hence it is that the observation of that peculiar and different form of life which God hath commanded those whom he hath called and set apart from the world unto himself, in Scripture carries the name of Holiness or Sanctity, (especially in the New Testament) that is, of such as becometh those that are Holy; according to that, Be ye Holy, as I am Holy. And here I might have a large field of discourse, to show how the Name of God is sanctified by the lives of his Children, when they conform not themselves to the fashions of the world, but as the Apostle speaks, are crucified thereto • and keep themselves unspotted from the pollutions and vanities thereof.

But this I leave to be supplied by your meditations, according to the general intimation given thereof.

Acts 17. 4.

PAUL and Silas preaching in the Jewish Synagogue at Thessalonica, and proving out of the Scriptures that Messiah or Christ was to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that Jesus was that Christ; it is said, that some of them which heard, believed; and that there associated themselves to them a great multitude 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the worshipping Greeks. Of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there is elsewhere mention in the Acts of the Apostles more than once; but what they were our Commentators do not so fully inform us; nor can it be understood without some delibation of Jewish Antiquity. The explication whereof will give some light not to this passage only, but to the whole Story of the Primitive Conversion of the Gentiles to the Faith, recorded in that Book.

We must know therefore, that of those Gentiles which embraced the worship of the God of Israel, (commonly termed Proselytes ) there were two sorts. One of such as were circumcised, and took upon them the observation of the whole Law of Moses. These were accounted as Jews, (to wit, facti, non nati, made, not born so ) bound to the like observances with them, conversed with as freely as if they had been so born; neither might the one eat, drink, or keep company with a Gentile more than the other, lest they became unclean. They worshipped in the same Court of the Temple where the Israelites did, whither others might not come. They were partakers with them in all things, both divine and human. In a word, they differed nothing from Jews, but only that they were of Gentile race.

This kind the Jewish Doctors call • 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Proselytes of Righteousness, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Proselytes of the Covenant, namely, because they took upon them the sign thereof, Circumcision. In the New Testament they are called simply Proselytes without addition. Of which Order was Uriah the Hittite, Achior in the Book of Judith, Herod the Idumaean, Onkelos the Chaldee Paraphrast, and many others both before and in our Savior's time.

But besides these there was a second kind of Gentiles, admitted likewise to the worship of the true God, the God of Israel, and the hope of the life to come; which were not circumcised, nor conformed themselves to the Mosaical rites and ordinances, but were only tied to the observation of those Precepts which the Hebrew Doctors call The Precepts of the sons of Noah; namely, such as all the sons of Noah were bound to observe.

These Precepts are in number Seven, recorded in the Talmud, Maimonides and others, under these following titles. First, the precept of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to renounce Idols and all Idolatrous worship. Secondly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to worship the true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Thirdly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Blood-shed; to wit, to commit no Murder. Fourthly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , detectio nuditatum, not to be defiled with Fornication, Incest, or other unlawful conjunction. Fifthly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rapine, against Theft and robbery. Sixthly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , concerning administration of Justice. The seventh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Membrum de vivo; so they call the Precept of not eating the flesh with the blood in it, given to Noah when he came out of the Ark; as Maimonides expressly expounds it, and adds besides; Whosoever shall take upon him the observation of the Seven precepts of the sons of Noah, he is to be accounted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one of the pious men of the nations of the world, and shall have a portion in the world to come. Note that he saith [ one of the pious men of the nations of the world, or of the pious Gentiles, ] for this kind were still esteemed Gentiles, and so called, because of their uncircumcision; in respect whereof (though no Idolaters) they were, according to the Law, unclean, and such as no Jew might converse with: wherefore they came not to worship into the Sacred Courts of the Temple, whither the Jews and circumcised Proselytes came; but only into the outmost Court, called Atrium Gentium & immundorum, the Court of the Gentiles and of the unclean, which, in the second Temple, surrounded the second or great Court, whereinto the Israelites came, being divided there-from by a low wall of stone made battlement-wise, not above three Cubits high, called (saith Josephus, from whom I have it) in the Hebrew Dialect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Lorica; close by which stood certain little pillars, whereon was written in Greek and Latin letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In atrium sanctum trans • re alienigenam non debere, That no alien or stranger might go into the inner or holy Court. And this, I make no question, is that which S. Paul, Ephes. 2. 14. alludeth unto, when he saith, that Christ had broken down the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the partition-wall, (namely, that Lorica which separated the Court of the Gentiles from that of the Circumcision) and so laying both Courts into one, hath made the Jews and Gentiles Intercommoners; whereby those that were sometime far off, were now made nigh, and as near as the other, unto the Throne of God. But in Solomon 's Temple this Court of the Gentiles seems not to have been, but in the second Temple only; the Gentiles formerly worshipping without at the door, and not coming within the Septs of the Temple at all.

This second kind of Proselytes the Talmudists call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Proselytes of the Gate, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Proselyte-inhabitants; namely, because they were under the same condition with those Gentile-strangers which lived as Inquilini in the Land of Israel. For all Gentiles dwelling within the Gates of Israel, whether they were as servants, taken in war, or otherwise, were bound to renounce their false God's, and to worship the God of Israel: but not to be circumcised, unless they would: nor farther bound to keep the Law of Moses than was contained in those Precepts of the sons of Noah. These are those mentioned (as often elsewhere in the Law, so) in the fourth Commandment, by the name of the Stranger within thy gates: whereby it might seem probable, that the observation of the Sabbath-day (so far as concerneth one day in seven) was included in someone or other of those Precepts of the sons of Noah, namely, in that of worshipping for their God the Creator of Heaven and earth, and no other; whereof this consecration of a seventh day, after six days labor, was a badge or livery; according to that, The Sabbath is a sign between me and you, that I Jehovah am your God: because in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is; and rested the seventh day. See Exod. 31. 16, 17. Ezek. 20. 20. But this obiter and by the way. From the example of these Inquilini, all other Gentiles, wheresoever living, admitted to the worship of the God of Israel upon the same terms, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Proselyti Portae, or Proselyti inquilini; of which sort there were many in all Cities and places of the Gentiles where the Jews had Synagogues and used to frequent the Synagogues with them, (though in a distinct place) to hear the Law and the Prophets read and expounded.

But in the New Testament they are found called by another name, to wit of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Worshippers, so often mentioned (though not observed) in the Acts of the Apostles. For first, these are those meant in that of Acts 17. 4. alleged at my entrance into this Discourse, where it is said that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A great number of the worshipping • reeks believed, and adhered to Paul and Silas; which the Vulgar rightly translateth, de colentibus Gentilibus multitudo magna, a great multitude of the worshipping Gentiles, taking the name of Greeks here, as elsewhere in the New Testament, to be put for Gentiles in general. And this place will admit of no evasion: For that they were Gentiles, the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 betokeneth expressly, being given them by way of distinction from the Jews then and there present also.

That they were worshippers of the true God, the God of Israel; their coming into the Synagogue, their name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their capableness of S. Paul's discourse, (which was to prove out of the Scriptures, that Messiah was to suffer death, and that Jesus was he ) argue sufficiently, yea abundantly. For who could have profited by such a Sermon as this, but those who already had knowledge of the true God, and believed the reward of the life to come? This place therefore may serve as a Key to all the rest of the places in this Book where these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are mentioned.

To that in the same Chapter, ver. 17. where it is said that S. Paul in the Synagogue at Athens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • discoursed to the Jews and the worshippers.

To that in Acts 16. 14. where S. Paul preaching the Gospel in the Jews Proseuchae or Oratory at Philippi, a woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the City Thyatira, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Proselyte-worshipper, was converted unto the faith, and baptized with all her household.

In like manner, to that in Acts 18. 4. when S. Paul is said at Corinth to have reason'd in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and to have persuaded the Jews and the Greeks: For these Greeks were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what did they in the Synagogue else so regularly every Sabbath-day? True, the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here wanting; but it presently follows, when the Jews opposed Paul, (there testifying Jesus to be the Christ ) and blasphemed, that he shook his raiment, and said, Your blood be on your own heads: from henceforth I will go to the Gentiles. And he departed thence, saith the Text, and entered into the house of one Iustus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Gentile-worshipper, whose house joined hard to the Synagogue.

But above all, that narration Acts 13. deserves our consideration and attention. There verse. 43. it is said, that S. Paul having preached the Gospel in the Jews Synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, there followed him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , many of the Jews and worshipping Proselytes: and v. 42. that when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue, the Gentiles, that is, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , • esought the Apostles that the same things might be preached unto them the next Sabbath; which being accordingly done, and many of the other Gentiles (who were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) upon the same of such a new Doctrine unwontedly assembling with them, it is said, that the Jews when they saw the multitude, were filled with envy, contradicted and blasphemed, v. 45. that then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, it was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken unto you; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles: for so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, &c. v. 46, 47. that when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and there believed as many as were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to eternal life, v. 48. that is, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who were already in procinctu and in the posture to eternal Life. The Jews blasphemed, the rest of the Gentiles were uncapable, only the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (who were already Candidati vitae aeternae, having been instructed in the worship of the true God, and hoping for the reward to come) they believed. Yet perhaps not all of them neither, (the words require not so much, but that none but such:) And it follows, v. 50. that the Jews found out some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , worshipping women, such as were of fashion, (who yet perhaps had not been at the Apostles Sermon,) by whose mean they stirred up the chief men in the City, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas. This I take to be the true and genuine meaning of this passage, upon which no charge of Pelagianism can be fastened; nor needeth it any spinous Criticisms for its explication. The use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , de acie & collocatione militum, de ascriptione in ordinem vel classem, as it relates to an army, the disposing or marshalling of soldiers, the being listed or enrolled into such a rank or company, (in which signification the Passive is most frequent) is well enough known. According to which sense and notion, the words might be rendered, Crediderunt quotquot nomina sua dederant vitae aeternae; or, [ per Ellipsin Participii] qui de agmine & classe fuerant sperantium vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam; otherwise, qui in procinctu stabant ad vitam aeternam; or most fitly, ( sensu modo militari, non destinationis) quotquot ordinati fuerant ad vitam aeternam. The sense whereof is in brief this; There believed as many as had listed themselves, or were of the company of those that did hope or earnestly labor for eternal life, or were in a ready posture and disposed to or for eternal life. De re tota judicent viri docti, & à studio partium alieni.

Besides, it will not be impertinent, as a Mantissa to these quotations for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to note That the same persons are otherwise (namely twice) characterised by the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those that fear God. As first of Cornelius, concerning whom there is no question but he was a Gentile-worshipper, the Text saith, There was a man in Gaesarea, called Cornelius, a Centurion of the Italian Band. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a pious man, and one that feared God, (i.) the God of Israel. Again in that 13. of the Acts (whereon we have dwelt so long) S. Paul speaking at first to that mixed multitude assembled in the Synagogue, consisting partly of Jews and partly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the worshipping Proselytes, he compellates them both distinctly in these words, v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ye men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. By the former meaning the Jews; by the latter, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Gentile-worshippers.

Of this kind of Converts (as I have in part already intimated) were in our Savior and his Apostles time very many in every Nation and City where the Jews lived and had their Synagogues; yea far more in number than of that other sort of Proselytes which were circumcised. The reason being, because it was the more easy condition, and not so prejudicial to their outward liberty as the other; inasmuch as they might notwithstanding still live and converse with their friends, kindred and Country-men, bear office and enjoy honors among them, (as Naaman the Syrian did, who was of this kind,) which the other might not do.

These impediments being out of the way, The hope of the Resurrection from the dead, and the Reward of the life to come, were powerful Inducements to draw many to the worship of that God, who only among the God's at that time promised this reward to such as worshipped and served him, and no other: which was the bait wherewith the Jews allured them; and that to their own no small emolument, this kind, as it were to recompense their want of Circumcision, seeming to have been very bountiful towards their Nation; as may be gathered both from Cornelius, who is said to have given much alms to the people, (namely of the Jews;) and from the Story of that Centurion, Luke 7. 4, 5. whom the Jews besought our Savior so instantly for, alleging, that he loved their Nation, and had built them a Synagogue, and therefore deserved that favor they sued for on his behalf.

NOW, out of this Discourse, besides the clearing of the passages afore-mentioned, we may learn two things: One, How so many of the Gentiles, by the preaching of the Apostles, could so soon and so readily be converted to the Faith of Christ; It was because they had already embraced the Principles which led thereunto. For we are to take notice, that the foundation of the Church among the Gentiles was laid of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who had already embraced the worship of the true God, had knowledge of his Promises, believed, and hoped for the life to come. For was not S. Peter (to whom the Instructions for this Embassage were first given) sent first to Cornelius a Centurion, a Gentile of this order? wherefore? but that this might be for a pattern for them, with what kind of men they were first to deal in this great work; namely with such as were idonei Auditores Evangelii, fit and capable hearers of the Gospel; those which were puri pu • i Gentiles, mere Gentiles, being not so, as who knew nothing of the Principles requisite thereto. This will appear, if we consider well the tenor of the Apostles Sermons to such Gentiles as they converted; which we shall observe to presuppose that they already knew the true God, and the promise of Eternal life to such as worshipped him; and so had no more to learn but the way and means now revealed by God for attainment thereof, which was by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The other thing we may learn is, What was the true state of the Question which the Apostles met to decide in the Council at Jerusalem; Whether the Gentiles which believed in Christ were to be circumcised or not, and so bound to keep the whole Law. It was this, to resolve (that, whereas all such as embraced the worship of the God of Israel, conformed to one of these two kinds of Proselytes ) to whether of them the Gentiles which had or should receive the Gospel of Christ, were to conform themselves; whether to the Proselytes of the Covenant, or to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Proselytes of the Gate. S. Peter standing up in the Council, demonstrates it to be the will of God that they should conform to the latter, and not to the first; and that upon this ground, Because that Cornelius, the first Christianed Gentile, unto whom himself was sent by Divine Commission, was no circumcised Proselyte, but a Proselyte of the Gate, or a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a worshipper only; yet received he no Commission to circumcise him: yea the Holy Ghost, as he was Preaching, fell upon him and his household being uncircumcised, as it did upon those of the Circumcision; whereby it appeared that God would have the rest of the Gentiles which embraced the Faith, to be after the pattern of Cornelius, and to have no more imposed upon them than He had. And accordingly the Council defines, That no other burden should be laid upon them, but only to abstain from pollutions of Idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication, and (as some Copies have it) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not to do that to others, which they would not should be done to themselves; that is they should as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 observe the Precepts of the sons of Noa • , which here [by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] are briefly reckoned up.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

2 PETER 2. 4.

THese two places are brought to prove, That the Devils, or Evil spirits, are now in Hell, before the Day of Judgment: Which I cannot see how it can possibly stand with the rest of the Scripture, which testifies everywhere that they have yet their mansion in the Air, and here about the Earth, where they tempt, seduce, and do all the mischief they can to mankind: hence their Chiestain Satan is styled The Prince of the power of the Air, that is, of the Aiery Dominion or Princedom. Therefore hither they were with their Prince exiled from Heaven, and no further, nor shall be until the Day of Judgment. And of this I shall speak at this time: First, to clear these Texts, which seem to make for the contrary; secondly, to inquire what was the opinion of the Ancients about this point.

As for this place of S. Peter, and that imitation thereof in the Epistle of S. Jude, I can believe the translation of neither. Piscator (not conceiving how that of S. Jude (especially because of the word [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] eternal ) could be reconciled with other Scripture, and Experience which shows us that the Evil spirits are not yet bound with eternal chains, having so much liberty of gadding about) supplies in the Text vinciendos, as if there were an Ellipsis, reading it thus, Iudicio magni illius Diei vinculis aeternis (vinciendos) reservâsse; He hath reserved them (to be bound) in eternal chains at the Judgment of the great Day.

In that of S. Peter, if I understand him, he takes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not for Dativus instrumenti; with chains of darkness, but as Dativus acquisitionis, for chains of darkness; and construes it with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as if it were, He delivered them for chains of darkness; namely, supposing a trajection of the words.

But for my part I take both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Peter, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Jude, to be neither of them Dativus Instrumenti, but both Acquisitionis or Finis, and governed the one of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the other of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —As in the Hebrew, the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serves both for the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and for the Dative Case, whose propriety the style of the Greek Testament everywhere imitates, and why not in this? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; therefore and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for (not, with) chains. Nay, among the Greek Grammarians we find observed, that the Dative Case is sometimes put for the Accusative with the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in this example, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 much more in the sacred Greek, which so frequently imitates the Hebrew Construction.

Next for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Peter, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but once used, and so not bound by any use or example to the signification which we here give it, to wit, casting down to hell. I would therefore render it, ad poenas tartareas damnavit, he hath adjudged them to hellish torments, to wit, thus, Angelos qui peccaverunt, cum ad tartari supplicium damnasset, catenis caliginis servandos tradidit ad Diem Iudicii; Having adjudged the Angels that sinned to hell-torments, he delivered them to be kept or reserved (in the Aiery region, as in a prison) for chains of darkness at the Day of Judgment. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judgment here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Day of Judgment, as S. Jude hath it: So also Matth. 12. 42. The Queen of the South shall rise in Judgment with this Generation, that is, in or at the Day of Judgment. Or if I would render it, not casting down to hell, but casting down to hell-ward, so the meaning in both places will be, That the wicked Angels were cast down from Heaven to this lower Orb, there to be reserved for chains of darkness at the Day of Judgment: Which sense the ninth verse of this Chapter of S. Peter plainly intimates by way of reddition; Novit Dominus pios in tentatione cripere, The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly in temptation, as he did Noah and Lot; Injustos vero in diem Iudicii cruciandos servare, But to reserve the unjust unto the Day of Judgment to be punished, as he doth the wicked Angels. Moreover verse 17. where the same hellish darkness is spoken of, it is said to be reserved for the wicked, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to whom that hideous darkness is reserved forever; whence it is probable that S. Peter, in the foregoing passage of Angels, referred also those chains of darkness to reserving, and not to delivering; that is, not that the evil Angels were now already delivered to chains of darkness, but reserved for them at the Day of Judgment.

AND thus much for clearing of the words of these two parallel Texts. Now what hath been anciently the current opinion about this point? And first, for the Jews, it is apparent to have been a Tradition of theirs, That all the space between the Earth and the Firmament is full of Troops of Evil spirits and their Chieftains having their residence in the Air; which I make no doubt but S. Paul had respect to, when he calls Satan the Prince of the power of the Air. Drusius quotes two Authors, one the Book called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , another one of the Commentators upon Pirke Aboth, who speak in this manner; Debet homo scire & intelligere, à terra usque ad firmamentum omnia plena esse turmis & praefectis, &c. A man is to know and understand, that all from Earth to the Firmament is full (and no place is empty) of Troops of Spirits together with their Chieftains and such as are Praepositi; all which have their residence and fly up and down in the Air: some of them incite to peace, others to war; some to goodness and life, others to wickedness and death. By Praepositi, I suppose, he means such among the Spirits as are set as Wardens over several charges, for the managing of the affairs of mankind subject to their power. This was the Opinion of the Jews, which they seem to have learned by Tradition from their ancient Prophets; for in the Old Testament we find no such thing written, and yet we see S. Paul seems to approve it.

Now for the Doctors of the Christian Church, S. Jerome upon the sixth of the Ephesians tells us, that their Opinion was the same; ' It is the opinion of all the Doctors, ( • aith he) that the Devils have their Mansions and residence in the space between the heaven and the earth. And that the Fathers of the first 300 or 400 years nor did, nor could, hold the evil Angels to have been cast into Hell upon their sin, is evident by a singular Tenet of theirs. For Justin Martyr, one of the most ancient, hath this saying; That Satan before the coming of Christ never durst blaspheme God, and that (saith he) because till then he knew not he should be damned. The same is approved by Irenaeus (lib. 5. cap. 26.) Praeclare (saith he) dixit Justinus, quod ante Domini adventum Satanas nunquam ausus est blasphemare Deum, quippe nondum sciens suam damnationem: Post adventum autem Domini, ex sermonibus Christi & Apostolorum ejus discens m • nifeste quoniam ignis aeternus ei praeparatus sit;—per hujusmodi homines blasphemat eum Deum qui judicium importat. It was a worthy saying of Justin, That Satan before the coming of our Lord never durst blaspheme God, as not till then knowing he should be damned: But after the coming of our Lord, he clearly understanding by the Discourses of Christ and his Apostles that everlasting fire was prepared for him—by these men (Irenaeus means those Heretics who blasphemed the God of the Law) he blaspemes that God who brings that punishment upon them. Eusebius ( lib. 4. Hist. Cap. 17.) cites the same out of both, with approbation: So doth Oecumenius upon the last Chapter of the first of S. Peter. Epiphanius against Heresy 39. gives the same as his own assertion, almost in the same words with Justin and Irenaeus, though not naming them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Before the coming of Christ the Devil did not dare to speak a blasphemous word against his Lord; for being in expectation of the coming of Christ, he imagined he should obtain some mercy. I will not inquire how true this Tenet of theirs is, but only gather this, that they could not think the Devils were cast into Hell before the coming of Christ: For then how could they but have known they should be damned, if the execution had already been done upon them?

Saint Augustine, as may seem, intending to reconcile these places of Peter and Jude with the rest of Scripture, is alleged to affirm, that the Devils suffering some Hell-like torment in their Aiery Mansion, the Air may in that respect in an improper sense be called Hell. But that the Devils were locally or Actually in Hell, or should be, before the Day of Judgment, it is plain he held not; and that will appear by these two passages in his Book de Civitate Dei. First, where he saith, Daemones in hoc quidem aere habitant, quia de Coeli superioris sublimitate dejecti, merito irregressibilis transgressionis, in hoc sibi congruo velut carcere praedamnati sunt. Lib. 8. Cap. 22. The Devils indeed have their habitation in this Air; for they being cast out of the highest heaven, through the due desert of their unrecoverable apostasy and transgression, are fore-condemned and adjudged to be kept in this Aiery region, as in a prison very congruous and fit for such transgressors. The other (in the same Book, chap. 23.) where he expounds that of the Devils Matth. 8. Art thou come to torment us before the time? that is, (saith he) ante tempus Iudicii, quo aeternâ damnatione puniendi sunt, cum omnibus etiam hominibus qui eorum societate detinentur; before the time of the last Judgment, when they are to be eternally punished, together with all those men who are entangled in their society.

The Divines of latter times, the School-men and others, to reconcile the supposed Contrariety in Scripture, divide the matter; holding some Devils to be in the Air, (as S. Paul and the History of Scripture tell us,) some to be already in Hell, (as they thought S. Peter and S. Jude affirmed:) which opinion seems to be occasioned by a Quaere of S. Jerome 's upon the sixth of the Ephesians, though he speaks but obscurely, and defines nothing. But what ground of Scripture or Reason can be given, why all the Devils which sinned, should not be in the same Condition? especially that Satan, the worst and chief of them, should not be in the worst estate, but enjoy the greatest liberty? It follows therefore that these places of S. Peter and S. Jude are to be construed according to the sense I have given of them; namely, That the evil Spirits which sinned, being adjudged to Hellish torments, were cast out of Heaven into this lower Region, there to be reserved, as in a prison, for chains of darkness at the Day of Judgment.

1 COR. 4. 1.

A Man would think at first sight, that this Scripture did exceedingly warrant our use of the word Minister instead of that of Priest, and leave no plea for them who had rather speak otherwise. Howsoever I intend at this time to show the contrary, and (even out of this Text,) that we have very much swerved herein from the Apostles language, and abuse that word to such a sense as they never intended, nor is anywhere found in Scripture. I favor neither superstition nor superstitious men; yet truth is truth, and needful to be known; especially when ignorance thereof breedeth error and uncharitableness. My Discourse therefore shall be of the use of the words Priest and Minister; wherein shall appear how truly we are all Ministers in our Apostle's sense, and yet how abusively and improperly so called in the ordinary and prevailing use of that word.

I will begin thus. All Ecclesiastical persons or Clergy-men may be considered in a Threefold relation: First, to God; secondly, to the People; thirdly, one toward another. In respect to God, all are Ministers of what degree soever they be; because they do what they do by commission from him, either more or less immediate: for a Minister is he qui operam suam alicui, ut superiori aut domino, praebet, who serves another as his Superior or Master. In respect of the People all are Bishops, that is, Inspectores or Overseers, as having charge to look unto them. But lastly, compared one to another, he whom we usually call Bishop is only Overseer of the rest, Inspector totius Cleri. Deacons are only Ministers to the rest, Ministri Presbyterorum & Episcoporum: and in that respect have their name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

There are properly but two Orders Ecclesiastical, Presbyteri & Diaconi: the one the Masters, Priests; the other the Ministers, Deacons. The rest are but diverse degrees of these Two. As Bishops are a degree of Presbyters of divine ordinance, to be as Heads, Chiefs, and Presidents of their Brethren: So Sub • deacons, Lectors, and indeed any other kind of Ecclesiastical Ministers, whether in Ecclesia or Foro Ecclesiastico (I mean whether they attend divine Duties in the Church, or Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Courts) are all a kind of Deacons, being to the Presbyters, either single or Episcopal, as the Levites were to the Sacerdotes, in the Old Testament, namely, to minister unto or for them. Thus when we say, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, we name but two Orders, yet three Degrees.

These grounds being forelaid and understood.

[unspec 1] I affirm, first, That Presbyters are by us unnaturally and improperly called Ministers either of the Church, or of such or such a Parish: we should call them, as my Text doth, Ministers of God, or Ministers of Christ, not Ministers of men.

First, Because they are only God's Ministers, who sends them; but the People's Magistri, to teach, instruct and oversee them. Were it not absurd to call the Shepherd the Sheeps Minister? If he be their Minister, they surely are his Masters. And so indeed the People by occasion of this misappellation think they are ours, and use us accordingly. Indeed we are called Ministers, but never their Ministers; but, as you see here. God's Ministers, Christ's Ministers, who employeth us to dispense his Mysteries unto his Church.

There are Three words in the New Testament translated Minister, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • the first is most frequent; but not one of them is given to the Apostles, in the whole Scripture, with relation to the Church or People: you shall never find them called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ministers of the Church, which is so frequent with us, but Ministers of God, 2 Cor. 6. 4. 1 Thess. 3. 2. Ministers of Christ, as in my Text, and 2 Cor. 11. 23. Col. 1. 7. Ministers of Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 4. 6. or Ministers of that which they minister, as Ministers of the New Testament, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Ministers of the Gospel, Ephes. 3. 7. Coloss. 1. 23. But not Ministers of them to whose behoof they minister. Yet might this speech, Minister of the Church, if rightly construed, be admitted; namely, if it be spoken by an Ellipsis, for Minister of God for and over the Church: so the Apostle Coloss. 1. 7. A faithful Minister of Christ for you, that is, Christ's Minister, not theirs; yet not for Christ, but for them. But those who use this speech commonly mean otherwise.

Secondly, Angels are called ministering spirits, but not our Ministers, but God's Ministers to us-ward, or for our behalf: So Ministers of the Gospel, not the People's or Congregation's Ministers, but God's Ministers for their behoof.

Thirdly, This speech [ Minister of the Church, or, of this or that Church ] is so much the more incommodious, because it hath begotten (as incommodious and unapt speeches do] an erroneous conceit, not only among the vulgar, but some of better understanding; namely, That a Minister is not lawfully called, unless he be chosen by the People, because he is their Minister, and so to be deputed by them. And indeed if he be their Minister in proper relation, they are his Masters, and so it is good reason they should appoint him, as Masters do those who are to serve them: But if in proper relation they are God's Ministers, and not theirs, (though for them) then God is to appoint them, or such as he hath put in place to do it. It is an erroneous conceit that some maintain, That the power of Sacred Order and of the Keys is given by God immediately to the Body of the Congregation; and that they depute him who is their Minister, to execute the power which is originally in them: That power is conferred by God immediately to those who are Bishops and Pastors, and by and through them belongs to the whole Body, and no otherwise. Sed tantum potuit incommodi sermonis usus.

Some perhaps will object against my whole Assertion that of S. Paul, 2 Cor. 4. 5. We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake: If the Apostles were the Churches Servants, why not their Ministers? I answer, the Apostle says not they were the Corinthians servants, but that he had made himself so, in his Preaching to them. So he says expressly, 1 Cor. 9. 19. For though I be free from all men, yet I have made myself a servant to all, that I might gain the more. Yet he confesses the Corinthians began to vilify him for this condescent, 2 Cor. 11. 7. Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that you might be exalted, because I have preached unto you the Gospel of God freely? This was that wherein he carried himself toward the Corinthians as a Servant, but to other Churches he did not so. It would be a strange assertion to say the Apostle were the Corinthians Servant in a proper relation: we know he says, Gal. 1. 10. If I pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ; and Rom. 6. 16. Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey?

I come now to a second Assertion, which is, That howsoever any Ecclesiastical [unspec 2] person may be rightly called a Minister, (so it be in a proper relation to Godward,) yet the word Minister is again most unfitly used by us for a name of distinction of one Ecclesiastical Order from another: as when we call those which are Presbyters, Ministers, by way of distinction from Deacons; for so we speak Ministers and Deacons, instead of Priests and Deacons.

The reason we thus speak is to avoid the name Priest, which we conceive to signify Sacerdos, that is, one that sacrificeth, such as were those in the Law: But our Curates of holy things in the Gospel are not to offer Sacrifice, and therefore ought not to be called Sacerdotes, and consequently not Priests. This is the reason. But if it be well examined, Priest is the English of Presbyter, and not of Sacerdos; there being in our Tongue no word in use for Sacerdos: Priest, which we use for both, being improperly used for a Sacrificer; but naturally expressing a Presbyter, the name whereby the Apostles call both themselves and those which succeed them in their charge. For who can deny that our word Priest is corrupted of Presbyter? Our Ancestors the Saxons first used Preoster, whence by a farther contraction came Preste and Priest. The high and low Dutch have Priester, the French Prestre, the Italian Prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full Presbytero.

But, to come more near the point, our men in using the word [ Minister ] for a distinctive name instead of Priest, incur four Solecisms; I mean, when we use the word Minister (not at large, but) for a distinction from the Order of Deacons, saying Ministers and Deacons.

First, We run into that we sought to avoid. For we would avoid to call the Presbyters of the Gospel by the name of the Sacrificers of the Law; and yet run into it in such sort, that we style those of the Gospel by the Legal name, and those of the Law by the Evangelical name. The Hebrew calls them of the Law Cohanim, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which properly signifies to minister, and thence comes the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but we call those of the Gospel Cohanim, when we style them Ministers. On the contrary, the Apostles style those of the Gospel, Presbyteri; but we transfer that name to those of the Law, when we call them Priests. This is counterchange;

Secondly, It is a confusion or Tautology, to say Ministers and Deacons, that is, Ministers and Ministers; for Deacon [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is, in Greek, a Minister; the one is Minister in Latin, the other in Greek: as if one should say, Homo and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Dil • vium and Cataclysmus, and think so to distinguish things of several natures or conditions.

Thirdly, We impose upon that Order a name of a direct contrary notion to what the Apostles gave them: The Apostles gave them a name of Eldership and Superiority in calling them Presbyteri; we of Inferiority and Subordination in calling them Ministri. The Jews had no name more honorable than that of Elders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for so they called their Magistrates: so we read of Elders of the people, and Elders of the Priests and Levites, meaning the chief in both sorts. This honorable name the Apostles gave as a name of distinction to the Evangelical Pastors; whereby they dignified them above those of the Law, whose name in the Hebrew (as I said before) is but a denomination of Ministry: And we have rejected the name of Dignity, of Fathership, of Eldership; and assumed instead thereof a name of under-service, of subjection, of Ministry, to distinguish our Order by: I say, to distinguish our Order; for in a general sense and with reference to God, we are all his Ministers; and it is an honor unto us so to be, more than to be other men's Masters, as our Apostle in my Text intimates.

Fourthly, In the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas there is a worse Solecism by reason of this misapplied speech. They have a kind of Officers who are the Pastors assistants in Discipline, much like to our Church-wardens; these they call Elders, we style them Lay-Elders: These are but a kind of Deacons at the most, and of a new erection too; and yet these are dignified by the name of Elders and Presbyters, who are indeed but Deacons or Ministers; and the Pastor himself is called a Minister, who in the Apostles style is the only Presbyter or Elder. For so they speak, The Minister and his Presbyters or Elders.

To conclude, it had been to be wished that those whom the term of Priest displeased, as that which gave occasion by the long abuse thereof to fancy a Sacrifice, had rather restored the Apostolical name of Presbyter in the full sound, which would have been as soon and as easily learned and understood as Minister, and was no way subject to that supposed inconvenience. But the mis-application of the word [ Presbyter ] in some Churches to an Order the Apostles called not by that name, deprived those thereof to whom it was properly due. Howsoever when they call us Ministers, let them account of us as the Ministers of Christ, and not of men: not as deputed by the Congregation to execute a power originally in them, but as Stewards of the Mysteries of God.

S. JOHN 10. 20.

IT is a matter of greater moment than perhaps every man thinks of, under what notions Things are conceived, and from what property or Character the Names we call them by are derived. For hereby not seldom it comes to pass, that the same things, presented to us under different notions, and names derived therefrom, are not taken to be the same they are: Even as he that meets a man well known unto him, in an exotic disguise or antick habit, takes him to be some other, though he knew him never so well before. For example; a man would wonder that a Comet, (as we call it) being so remarkable and principal a work of the Divine power, and which draws the eyes of all men with admiration towards it, should nowhere be found mentioned in the Old Testament: neither there where the works of God are so often recounted to magnify him, (whenas Hail, Snow, Rain and Ice, works of far less admiration, are not pretermitted;) neither by way of allusion and figured expression, in the Prophets predictions of great calamities and changes, whereof they were taken to be presages; especially when we see them borrow so many other allusions both from heaven and earth to paint their descriptions with. Should a man therefore think there never appeared any of them in those times or to those Countries? It is incredible: Or that the Jews were so dull and heedless as not to observe them? That is not like neither. What should we say then? Surely, they conceived of them under some other notions than we do, and accordingly expressed them some other way. As what if by a Pillar of fire, such a one perhaps as went before the Israelites in the Wilderness? Or by a Pillar of fire and smoke? as in that of Ieel 2. 30. I will show wonders in the heavens, and in the earth, Blood and Fire and Pillars of smoke: Or by the name of an Angel of the Lord, (whereby no doubt they are guided?) according as it is said of that Pillar of Fire which went before th ••• raclites, that the Angel of God, when they were to pass the Red Sea • came and •• ood between them and the Egyptians, when that Pillar did so. And who knows whether that in the 104. Psalm, v. 4. may not have some meaning this way? He maketh his Angels Spirits (or winds,) and his Ministers a Flame of fire, to wit, because they are wont to appear in both. It comes in, in the Psalm, among other Works of God, in a sit place for such a sense, both in regard of what goes before and follows after. These, I say, or some of these may be descriptions of those we call Comets; which because they are disguised under another notion, and not denominated from Stell • or Coma, hence we know them not.

Now to come toward my Text; alike instance to this I take to be that of the Daemoniacks so often mentioned in the Gospel. For I make no question but that now and then the same befalls other men whereof I have experience myself, to wit, to marvel how these Daemoniacks should so abound in and about that Nation, which was the People of God; (whereas in other Nations and their writings we hear of no such;) and that too, as it should seem, about the time of our Savior's being on earth only, because in the time before we find no mention of them in Scripture. The wonder is yet the greater, because it seems notwithstanding all this, by the Story of the Gospel, not to have been accounted then by the people of the Jews any strange or extraordinary thing, but as a matter usual; nor besides is taken notice of by any foreign Story.

To meet with all these difficulties, (which I see not how otherwise can be easily satisfied) I am persuaded (till I shall hear better reason to the contrary,) that these Daemoniacks were no other than such as we call Mad-men and Lunaticks, at least that we comprehend them under those names; and that therefore they both still are, and in all times and places have been, much more frequent than we imagine. The cause of which our mistake is that disguise of another name and notion than we conceive them by; which makes us take them to be diverse, which are the same.

That you may rightly understand this my Assertion (before I acquaint you with the Reasons which induce me thereunto) you must know, That the Masters of Physic tell us of two kinds of Deliration or ali • nation of the Understanding. One ex vi morbi, that, namely, which is from or with a Fever, called Delirium or Phrenitis (the latter being a higher degree than the former:) Another kind sine Febre, when a man, having no other disease, is crazed and disturbed in his wits.

And this they say is either simple dotage, proceeding from some weakness of the Brain or Intellective faculty; or Melancholia and Mania, which they describe and distinguish thus: Both of them to be when the Understanding is so disturbed, that men imagine, speak, and do things which are most absurd and contrary to all reason, sense, and use of men: but their difference to be in this, that Melancholia is attended with fear, sadness, silence, retiredness, and the like Symptoms; Mania with rage, raving and fury, and actions suitable; which is most properly styled Madness. Now when I say that those Daemoniacks in the Gospel were such as we call Mad-men, understand me to mean not of Deliration ex vi morbi, or of simple dotage, but of those two last kinds, Melancholici and Maniaci; whereunto add morbus Comilialis or falling sickness, and whatsoever is properly called Lunacy.

Such as these, I say, the Jews believed (and so may we) to be troubled and acted with evil Spirits, as it is said of Saul 's Melancholy, that an evil Spirit from the Lord troubled him; and therefore, passing by all other Causes or Symptoms, they thought sit to give them their Name from this, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . An occasion of the more frequent use of which expression in our Savior's time and the ages immediately before him than formerly had been, may seem to have been given by the Sect of the Sadd • cees, which, after the time of Hyrcanus, had much prevailed, and affirmed (as S. Luke tells us) that there was no Resurrection, neither Angel, nor Spirit. To affront and cry down whose error, it is like enough the Pharisees, and the rest of the right-believing Jews who followed them, affected to draw their expressions (wheresoever they could) from Angels and Spirits; as presently they did, in the Acts, when S. Paul awakened their faction in the Council, saying, I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee, &c. We find no evil, say they, in this man; but if a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken unto him, let us not fight against God.

Having thus sufficiently stated and explicated my Assertion; now you shall hear what grounds I have for the same. First, therefore, I prove it out of the Gospel it self, and that in the first place from this Scripture which I have chosen for my Text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He hath a Devil, and is mad. Where I suppose the latter words to be an explication of the former. Secondly, I prove it out of Matth. 17. 14, 15. where it is said, There came to our Savior a certain man kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because he is Lunatick and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. That this Lunatick was a Daemoniack, it is evident both out of the 18. verse of this Chapter, where it is said, Our Savior rebuked the Devil, and he departed out of him, and the child was cured from that very hour: as also out of the 9. of the Gospel of S. Luke, V. 39. where it is said of the self-same person, Lo, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out, and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him, hardly departeth from him. By comparing of these places, you may gather what kind of men they were which the Scripture calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Daemoniacks.

Now I come to other Testimonies. And first, take notice that the Gentiles also had the like apprehension of their Mad-men, whence they called them Larvati and Cerriti: where Larvati is as much as Larvis, id est, Daemonibus, acti: so Festus, Larvati, saith he, furiosi & mente moti, quasi Larvis exterriti. And for Cerriti, they were so called, quasi Cereriti, hoc est, à Cerere percussi. And therefore you may remember that when Menaechmus in Plautus feigns himself mad, and talks accordingly; the Physician who was sent for to cure him asks the old man who came to fetch him, whether he were Larvatus or Cerritus. If the Gentiles thought thus of their Mad-men, should we think it strange the Jews should? I could tell you here, that the Turks conceit of their Mad-men is not unlike this; but that they suppose the Spirit that works in them to be a good rather than an evil one. But I let this pass.

My next Testimony shall be out of Justin Martyr, who in his second Apology ad Antoninum, to prove (at least to a Gentile) that the Souls of men have existence and sense after death, brings for an Argument their Necromancy and their callings up the spirits of the deceased, together with other the like, and in the last place this of Daemoniacks; where by his description of them, we may easily gather what kind of people they were which were so taken to be. They also (saith he) which are seised upon by the Spirits of the deceased (for such were these Daemonia taken to be) and are cast and tumbled upon the ground, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which all call Daemoniacks and Mad-men. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were all one, as men then conceived. Note here, that these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were taken to be the Souls of men deceased, and that not among the Gentiles only, but (as may seem) among the Jews also. For Josephus in his seventh Book De Bello Iudaico, Chap. 25. mentioning these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon occasion of a certain Herb supposed to be good for them, saith expressly by way of Parenthesis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (scil. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , these Daemonia are the Spirits or Souls of the worst sort of men deceased, which are gotten into the bodies of the living. I tell not this with a meaning to avouch it for true; but only that you might understand how Justin Martyr 's argument proceeds, to prove that Souls have existence after Death, from the Daemoniacks.

My last proof is taken from those Energumeni (which are all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) so often mentioned in the Church-Liturgies, in the ancient Canons, and in other Ecclesiastical writings, many Ages after our Savior's being on earth; and that, not as any rare and unaccustomed thing, but as ordinary and usual. They were wont to send them out of the Church when the Liturgy began; as they did the Poenitentes, Auditores, and Catechumen, which might not be partakers of the Holy Mysteries. If those were not such as we now-a-days conceive of no otherwise than as Mad-men, surely the world must be supposed to be very well rid of Devils over it hath been; which for my part I believe not. Nay, that these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 possessed with the Devil, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Daemoniacks, were such as I speak of, Balsamon and Zonaras both in their Scholia upon the Canons of the Church will, I think, inform us: For, to reconcile two Canons concerning these Energumeni or possessed, which seem contradictory; one (called of the Apostles) in these words' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If any hath a Devil, or is mad, let him not be made a Clergy-man, nor let him be admitted to pray with the faithful; another of Timothy sometime Patriarch of Alexandria, speaking thus' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , If any of the faithful be a Daemoniack, he ought to partake of the holy Mysteries: To reconcile these, I say, they affirm the former (which admits them not,) to be meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of him that is continually and always mad, namely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. lest one so affected should, either by some indecent actions and foul miscarriages of his own, or by his daemoniacal clamours, disturb the people of God and the Church-service; but that of Timothy, that admits them, to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of him that is mad but by fits, and hath his Lucida intervalla. And thus I have acquainted you with what I have observed to confirm me in this opinion, and make no doubt but there are more passages yet to be found this way than I have met with.

PROVERBS 21. 16.

IT is a question sometimes moved amongst Divines, and worth resolving, How and by what name the Place and condition of the damned (which in the Gospel is called Gehenna ) was termed or expressed in the Old Testament before the Captivity of Babylon, and whilst the first Temple stood. For presently after the Return the afore-mentioned name Gehenna began to be frequented: as appears both by the second of Esdras, the Chaldee Paraphrast, and other Jewish writings, where that name is often found; as also by the Gospel, where our Savior useth it as then vulgarly known amongst the Jews. But it is as certain that before the Captivity or second Temple (for so the Jews call the time of their state after their return) this name was not in use: both because it is nowhere to be found in the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, which were all written within that time; and especially, because the ground and occasion thereof was not till about that time in being, which was the pollution of the valley of the sons of Hinnom, or Tophet, by King Josiah, and the dreadful execution of divine vengeance in that Place: Hence it became to posterity to be a Name of execration, and applied to signify the Place of eternal punishment.

For this valley of Hinnom (Gehinnom, or, as afterward they pronounced it, Gehenna) was a valley near Jerusalem, in a place whereof called Tophet the Children of Israel committed that abominable Idolatry, in making their Children pass through the fire to Moloch; that is, burnt them to the Devil. For an eternal detestation whereof King Josiah polluted it, and made it a place execrable, ordaining it to be the place whither dead Carkasses, Garbage, and other unclean things should be cast out: for consuming whereof, to prevent annoiance, a continual fire was there burning. Yea, not man only, but the Lord himself as it were consecrated this place to be a place of execration, by making it the field of his vengeance both before and after. For first, this was the place where the Angel of the Lord destroyed the host of Sennacherib King of Assyria, and where one hundred and eighty thousand of their Carkasses were burnt, according to that, Isaiah 30. 31. Through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down. V. 33. For Tophet (this was a place, I told you, in the valley of Hinnom) is ordained of old; yea for the King it is prepared: he hath made it deep and large, the pile thereof is fire and much wood, the breath of the Lord like a stream of brimstone doth kindle it. This was also the place where the Idolatrous Jews were slain and massacred by the Babylonian armies when their City was taken, and their Carkasses left, for want of room for burial, for meat to the fowls of heaven and beasts of the field; according to the word of the Lord by the Prophet Jeremiah, in his seventh and nineteenth Chapters, The Children of Judah have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall be no more called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: For they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place. And the carcasses of this people shall be meat for the fowls of heaven and the beasts of the field, and none shall fray them away.

Hence, as I said, this place being so many ways execrable for what had been done therein, especially having been as it were the gate to eternal destruction, by so remarkable judgments and vengeance of God there executed for sin, it came to be translated to signify the Place of the damned, as the most accursed, execrable, and abominable place of all places; the invisible valley of Hinnom. For such was the property of the Jewish Language, to give denominations unto things unseen from such analogical and borrowed expressions of things visible. By all which it is apparent that this notion of that name took its beginning after the Captivity and was not in use before.

Still therefore we are left to seek, by what other name and under what other notion this place of the damned was expressed before the word Gehenna or Gehinnom came to be used. I answer, out of my Text, it seems to have been called Domus or Coetus Gigantum. Vir qui erraverit à via intelligentiae, in Coetu Gigantum commorabitur, The man that wandreth out of the way of understanding, shall remain in the congregation of the Giants; in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Coetu Rephaim, which word [ Rephaim ] properly signifies Giants, and to that sense is always rendered by the Seventy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 though we and the later Interpreters, both in this and some other places, take it for manes or mortui, the Souls of the deceased: but the ancient, I think, deserve the more credit, especially it being confessed that the word elsewhere so signifies. In Coetu Gigantum therefore, that is, of those Giants and Rebels against God of whom we read Gen. 6. those mighty men and men of renown of the old World, whose wickedness was so great in the earth, that it repented and grieved God he had made man; and to take vengeance upon whom he brought the general Deluge upon the earth, and destroyed both man and beast from the face thereof. Vir qui erraverit à via doctrinae [intelligentiae,] The man that wandreth out of the way of understanding, shall go and keep them company; that is, go to that accursed place and condition which they are in.

[unspec 1] That this construction of Coetus Rephaim is not improbable, may appear, First, by the gloss of Rabbi Solomon upon this Text, In Coetu Rephaim, that is, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In Coetu Gehennae. This notion therefore is not altogether new.

[unspec 2] Secondly, it is strengthened by comparing with other places of Scripture where the like expression is used; as twice more in this Book of the Proverbs. First, Chap. 2. 18. where we read according to the Vulgar, Domus mulieris alienae inclinata est ad mortem, & ad in • eros semitae ipsius, The house of the strange woman inclineth unto death, and her paths unto Hell. Here for ad inferos, unto Hell, the Hebrew hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the Giants; and the Seventy render it with an Exegesis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , She hath put, or set, her paths in Hades, or Hell, with the Giants. Again, Chap. 9. 17, 18. Aquae furtivae dulciores sunt, & panis absconditus suavior: Et ignoravit quod ibi sint Gigantes, & in profundis Inferni convivae ejus: Stollen waters are sweeter, and hidden bread is more pleasant: but he knoweth not (namely, he that goes in to a Strange woman) that the Giants are there, and that her guests are in the depths of Hell. Here in some Editions of the Vulgar are added these words; Qui enim applicabitur illi, descendet ad inferos; & qui abscesserit ab illa, salvabitur: For he that is joined to her, shall go down to Hell; but he that departs from her, shall be saved. An Argument how this place hath been understood; for the meaning of both these places seems to be no other, but, that the strange woman will bring them who frequent her, to Hell, to keep the Apostate Giants company.

There is another place in the Hagiographa where these Rephaim are mentioned, to wit, Job. 26. 5, 6. which though of a more ambiguous sense and scope, yet as it is translated by the vulgar Latin (and well enough to agree with the Hebrew) seems to be no other than a description of Hell, with the former. Gigantes, saith he, gemunt sub aquis, & qui habitant cum eis: Nudus est infernus coram illo (id est, Deo) & nullum est operimentum perditioni. The meaning hereof seems to be this; The place where the old Giants mourn or wail under the waters, and their fellow-inhabitants, the rest of the damned with them, even infernus, and the place of Perdition itself, is naked and open to the eyes of God, from whom nothing is hid. Which is agreeable to that, Proverbs 15. 11. Hell and Destruction are before the Lord: how much more then the hearts of the children of men? In this place the Jews take the word Abaddon, which we render Destruction, for Gehenna; that is, Elliptically, for Beth Abaddon, the House of Destruction. And why then should not the same word be so taken in that place of Job; and Nullum est operimentum perditioni, There is no covering for Destruction, be as much as, Nullum est operimentum loco perditionis, or Gehennae, There is no covering for the House or Place of Destruction, or for Hell?

Compare with these places in the Hagiographa two in the Prophets: One in the 14. of Isaiah v. 9, 10. where by way of a Poetical or Prophetical hypotyposis of the destruction or fall of Babylon, the King thereof is brought in coming to the Rephaims or Giants in the other world. Hell (saith the Text) from beneath is moved for thee, to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the Rephaims for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth. And they shall say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

The other is the 32. of Ezekiel, concerning the fall of Egypt, where their slain are bestowed in like manner in the nethermost parts of the earth, with the Gibborim; which signifies not only mighty men, but Giants, and so is rendered in this place by the Seventy And thus much from comparison of places of Scripture.

A third Argument to make this notion probable which I have represented, is this; Because all the expressions almost in Scripture whereby this place of eternal punishment is represented, relate and allude to some places or Stories remarkable for God's exemplary vengeance executed upon sinners. As that of Gehenna to the notorious Iudgments of God in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, for Idolatry and Blasphemy: that of the Lake of fire and brimstone, so often mentioned in the Apocalypse, to the Lake Asphaltites, the lasting monument of those showers of fire and brimstone from heaven, wherewith Sodom and Gomorrah with the rest of the Cities of the Plain perished for their abominable Lusts. Our Savior's expression in his sentence of condemnation [ Go ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels ] seems to relate to the punishment of the Apostate-Angels, who for their rebellion were delivered unto chains of darkness against that great day.

And was not the destruction of the old world by the general Deluge of water as famous as any of these? yea, not to be paralleled by any but that second Deluge of fire at the last Judgment? How improbable is it then, that this should not lend a denomination to the place or state of eternal punishment as well as the rest?

Nay, which is more, S. Peter in his second Epistle and second Chapter recites these last three together, as if they had been intended as Patterns of the eternal Judgment and punishment of sinful men. V. 4. For (saith he) if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to Hell, and delivered them to chains of darkness • to be reserved unto judgment; 5. and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a Preacher of righteousness, bringing in the Flood upon the world of the ungodly, (that is, of the Rephaim; for so the Seventy sometimes turn it;) 6. And turning the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an Ensample or Pattern (mark it well) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ( i.e. ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the punishment of such as should after live ungodly; (Hence, as I told you, was the Lake Asphaltites, or the Lake of fire and brimstone, borrowed by S. John for a denomination of Hell ) 7. And he delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (If God did this) 9. He knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of Judgment, to be punished. Ye see the application or reddition; and accordingly how prone the destruction of the world of the Rephaim or ungodly by the Deluge is to give denomination to the punishment of Hell, as well as the other two.

And now, I suppose, you look for my Application and putting of the whole Text together; which I shall dispatch quickly, but with it may be laid to heart often. He that goeth astray from the way of understanding, that is, He that wandreth from the Law and Discipline of God: (for that indeed is the true Wisdom, Timor Domini principium sapientiae, The fear of God is the prime Wisdom, (that's the meaning) or, to speak after our Academical notion, the chief Philosophy; whence, through all this Book of the Proverbs, the wicked man who hath no skill in this Divine Philosophy or Discipline of God, goeth for a Fool, and so is called) must one day go even to his Fellow-giants; who, as Baruch says in his third Chapter. v. 28. were destroyed because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness. Vir qui erraverit à via Doctrinae, in Coetu Gigantum commorabitur. Are there then any of these Fools amongst us, who profess the study of wisdom, but who shake off the yoke of Discipline, giving themselves to debauched courses, and neglecting the fear of the Lord? Here they may see whither they must one day go; even to those Rephaims of the old World, whose true sons they are, that is, unto the place of everlasting punishment: From which God deliver us.

GENESIS 49. 10.

IT is a Prophesy of the coming of Christ and the time thereof; namely, when the Scepter should depart from Judah, then should the coming, reign and Scepter of Messiah begin, and not till then: the end of the one should be the beginning of the other. Whence ariseth our Demonstration against the Jew; If the Scepter be already departed from Judah, as we know it is many hundred years since, then must Christ needs be come. For the Scepter was not to depart from Judah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh came.

For, that Shiloh here is the name of Messiah, appears by the subjunction annexed, that the People or Nations (for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the plural number) should be gathered, or be obedient, unto him: Ergo, He is to be a King of the Nations; and who should this be but Christ?

That the ancient Jews so understood it, appears by all the three Targums or Chaldee l'araphrasts. The Targum called of Jerusalem renders expressly, Until the time when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 King Messiah shall come. Jonathan, Until the time when Messiah shall come, a little one of his sons, that is, of Judah's sons; which one of the late Rabbies (saith Buxtorf ) expounds, Rex Messiah, qui venit ex David, &c. The King Messiah, who came of David, who was the least among the sons of Jesse his father. Onkelos, Until Messiah come, whose is the Kingdom. Likewise in their Talmud, Shiloh is reckoned among the names of Messiah.

Thus we and the ancient Jews agree about the aim and purport of this Scripture. But we Christians believe further, that it is long since fulfilled; howsoever for the very Point of Time when this Scepter departed from Judah, we vary in our opinions. Some will have it to have been when Pompey first brought the Jewish State under the Roman subjection. Others a little after, when Herod, an Idumaean stranger, yet formerly incorporated into the Jewish State and blood, was by the Romans invested to be their King, and the Hasmonaean or Maccabaean race (which till then had born the chief rule) by him extinguished. Others, not till the destruction and final dissolution of the Jewish State by Titus.

These are principal moments of time to be pitched upon. But against the first, the subjecting of the Jewish State to the Romans, is objected, First, That it anticipates the time of Christ's birth too much, being sixty years before it. Secondly, That it m • ght as well be affirmed, that the Scepter departed from Judah, when Nebuchadnezzar carried them captive to