Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Whether in the Iewish Church, there was any Suspension or exclusion of prophane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the publike Ordinances, with the rest of the Children of Israel in the Temple.
ERastus and his followers hold, that among the Jewes none was excluded from any publike Ordinance in the Temple, for morall uncleanesse, that is, for a prophane scandalous conversation, but onelyonly for legall or ceremoniall uncleanesse. The like Master Prynne saith of the Passeover, and of the Temple he holds that even those who were for their offences cast out of the Synagogues, were yet free to come and did come to the Temple. I shall particularly make Answer both to Erastus and to Master Prynne in this point, when they shall fall in my way afterward. I shall here, more generally endeavour to rectifie their great mistake, and to prove an exclusion from the Temple and publike Ordinances, for publike and scandalous offences in life and conversation, or for morall as well as ceremoniall uncleanesse.
First, I shall prove it ex ore duorum, from the Testimonies of two of the most famous witnesses of the Jewes themselves, Philo and Iosephus. tOfferenti victimas le… praecipit, ut p… rus fiat corpore ac animo. Et infra. Necessum est igitur adituros Templum sacr…rum gratia, & corpore nitidos esse, & multo magis anima. … &c. nam veri Dei Templum non patet prophanis sacrificiis. foreign.) Et post. an dubium est, neque legem quicquam ab injustis, neque solem à tenebris accipere? Et versus finem. Caeterum quia societatem humanitatemque (foreign) maximè docet lex nostra, utrique vir…ti honorem habet meritum, neminem deplorate malum ad eas admittens, sed quàm longissimè in rem malam ablegans. Cum igitur sciret concionibus (foreign) admisceri multos improbos, quòd se posse in turba latere autument, ut id caveret in posterum, omnes indignos à sacro caetu edicto prohibint (foreign) incipiens à semiviris obscaeno … laborantibus, qui naturae monetam adulterantes, in impudicarum mulierum affectum & formam sponte degenerant. Spadones item & castratos arcet &c. Pariter repellit non tantum scorta, sed & natos è prostitutis, contactos materno dedecore propter natales adulterinos. &c. Alii vero quasi contendant hos in impietatis stadio post se relinquere, addunt amplius, ut non solùm ideas, sed & deum esse negent. Et post. Proinde omnes hi meritò pelluntur à sacris c…ibus, (foreign)Philo lib de Victimas offerentibus, is so full and plaine, as if he had purposely written that Booke to record the exclusion of scandalous persons from Communion with the Church of Israel in the Temple. He presseth all along the necessity of holinesse and purity in those who bring Sacrifices, and tells us that their Law did exclude from their holy Assemblies meretricious persons, despisers of God, and all that were known to be impious and prophane, as well as those who were legally uncleane.
The same thing may be confirmed out of Iosephus, uAntiq. lib. 19. cap. …. libenter & continuò degebat (Agrippa) Hierosolymis, institutorum ac rituum patriae servator religiosissimus▪ … enim …rat â contaminamentis omnibus, nec ulla dies ei praeteribat absque sacrificio. Accidit aliquando ut quidam Hierosolymita legis peri…s, nomine Simon, advocata concione, per regis absentiam, agentis …um Caesareae, crimina…etur illum …t impurum & arcendum templi aditu, quod non ni…i dignis pateat. Id ubi praefectus u…bis illi significavit per literas, confestim accersivit hominem &c. Di… mihi inquit, quid ribi non probatur ex his quae …acimus.who records that one Simon a Doctor of the Law, did in the absence of King Agrippa, accuse him to the people as an impure unworthy man, who ought not be suffered to enter into the Temple. Iosephus gives a good Testimony to Agrippa, that he was unjustly accused. Agrippa himselfe sends for Simon, and askes him what he had ever done which deserved such an accusation. But neither Agrippa himselfe, nor Iosephus, saith one syllable to this purpose, that the excluding of a man from the Temple for prophanenesse and impiety was a new Arbitrary censure, contrary to the law or custome of the Jewes: which (no doubt) they had done, if there had been any ground for them to say so. Their very pleading of innocency, and no more, tacitely confirmeth that if guilty, it had been just to exclude from the Temple. Againe de bello Jud. lib. 4. cap. 5. Iosephus records that Ananus the high Priest (whom cap. 7. He highly commends for good government) had an oration to the Jewes against the foreign, the zelots, who under colour of that name, which they took to themselves, committed a great deale of injustice and violence. He said with tears, I had rather dye then see the house of God filled foreign with such crimes (or criminall persons) foreign, and the forbidden and holy places to be haunted and trode with the feet of those who are polluted with murthers: speaking of those zelots. What can be more plaine; foreign, a piacular crime, was a cause of keeping back from the Temple (even as also among the Heathens, some were for piacular crimes interdicted the Sacrifices) foreign, blood-guiltinesse, defilement by murther, was also a cause of exclusion from the Temple, and to such the Temple was a place inaccessible and forbidden. I adde a Testimony of I. Scaliger Elench. Trihaeres. Nic. Terar. cap. 28. where speaking of those Essaeans who did not observe the Mosaicall rites, he saith, Itaque non mirum, si tanquam foreign & piaculares aditu Templi prohibebantur. The like Constantinus l'Empereur annot. in Cod. Middoth pag 44. proves from another passage in Iosephus: vi…i autem qui non per omnia cas…i essent ab interiori aula prohibebantur. Where l'Empereur addeth, In spacii descripti partem interiorem non admittebant quoque haereticum: which he saith may be proved out of the Talmud. Quis enim dicat (saith Hen. Vorstius, animad. in Pirke pag. 169.) apostatam, blasphemum, aliaque sacra capita intra Templum fuisse admissa. Of the exclusion of excommunicate persons I have before spoken, following their opinion who hold, that such as were excommunicate by the lesser Excommunication or Niddui, had liberty to come into the Temple, yet so that they were to enter in at the gate of the mourners, and were not seen in the Temple, but as penitents: but such as were excommunicated by the greater Excommunication or Cherem were not suffered to come into the Temple, nor so much as into any assembly of ten men, and they might neither teach nor be taught. xAnnot▪ in Luk. 6. 22. Qui hac nota (minoris foreign five Niddui) inusti erant, s…ante Templo, accedebant ad Templum, ut ex Hebraeis vir doctus notavit: sed haud dubiè consistebant extra … foreign qui distingueb…t foreign ▪ ab Israelitis. Nam foreign interim foreign. lo…o habebantur.Grotius holds that such as were excommunicated by Niddui or the lesser Excommunication had power to come to the Temple, but no otherwise then Heathens, and that they might not come into the Court of Israel: which is an answer to M. Prynnes objection, that such as were cast out of the Synagogue came to the Temple.
There are but two places in the new Testament, which seem at first to make much against that which I have said. One is, Luke 18. concerning the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray, as well as the Pharisee. The other is Iohn 8. concerning the woman taken in adultery, whom they brought before Christ in the Temple. I remember yConfirm Thes. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 99. and elsewhere.Erastus objecteth them both.
To the first I answer, it rather confirmeth then confuteth what I have said. For 1. The Text saith, Vers. 13. the Publican stood afarre off: the Pharisee not so. zNam mos id… …erebat ut Publicani in atrio. Gentilium, Pharisaei in atrio Israelitarum sta…nt, nec quicquam in …o erat insolitum au… Pharisaeo imputandum.Grotius upon the place, Verse 11. noteth, that the Pharisees fault was not in this particular, that he came further into the Temple then the Publican: for the custome was such, that the Publicans were to stand in the Court of the Gentiles, the Pharisees in the Court of Israel. Camer. myroth. in Luke 18. is also of opinion that the Publican stood in the Court of the Gentiles, or in that first Court into which Iosephus lib. 2. contra Appion. saith, that all, even Heathens, might come. 2. And though our opposites could prove, that the Publican came into the Court of Israel, (which they will never be able to doe) yet this place helpes them not at all, unlesse they can prove that this was a scandalous and prophane Publican. It is certaine that divers of the Publicans were religious and devout men, and that this was one of them, we may more then conjecturally know, by the Pharisees owne words, for when he hath thanked God, that he is not as other men, adulterers, unjust, extortioners, he addeth with a disjunction, or even as this Publican, thus preferring himselfe not onelyonly to the infamous and scandalous Publicans, but even to this devout Publican. More of this place afterward, in the debate of Matth. 18.
To the other objection from Iohn 8. 2, 3. where it is said that the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery into the Temple, and set her before Christ; First, I answer with aSanè cum Servator in Templo d…cuisse cap. 8. Joh. legitur, quò mulierem depraehensam Pharisaei ipsi adduxerunt; alium locum praeter hunc qui …at extra a tria, designati credere nequeo: quandequidem è Josepho obs… vatum jam suit, impu…is atria adire fa… non fuisse.Const. l'Empereur annot. in Cod. Middoth cap. 2. pag. 45. by the Temple, in that place, we are to understand the Intermurale, the utter Court, or Court of the Gentiles, which was without the Court of Israel, which utter Court (saith he) both the Evangelists and Iosephus call by the name of foreign the Temple. Yea the whole mountaine of the Temple, even comprehending that part of it which was without the Intermurale, had the name of the Temple, as M. Selden noteth de Jure nat. & Gent. l. 3. c. 6. p. 298. And lib. 4. cap. 5. he expounds that of the Money-changers in the Temple, to be meant of the court of the Gentiles. This answer doth the better agree to Iohn 8. because V. 2. tels us, it was in the place where all the people came unto Jesus, and he taught them. Now it is certaine that both Christ and his Apostles did often teach the people in the Coutt of the Gentiles, and in Solomons porch, which was without the Court of Israel, in the Intermurale, that all might have the better occasion of hearing the Gospell, even they who were not permitted to enter into the Court of Israel. Wherefore since the Text tels us, that when the Pharisees brought the woman to Christ, he was teaching in such a place, where all the people had accesse to heare him: this agreeth better to the Intermurale, then to the Court of Israel. Secondly, I answer, that woman did not come as a priviledged person, free to come and worship …in the Court of Israel, with the Church of Israel; but she is brought as an accused person, that in the most publique and shamefull manner she might be sentenced and condemned, and made vile before all the people: so that it was in her paena, non privilegium. bP. Cuneu… de▪ repub. Hebr. lib. 1. cap. 12. Concilii magni sedes in ipso …anctuario fuit.The Sanhedrin also did sit in the Temple, so that such as were to be examined and judged, must be brought to that place where the Sanhedrin was, which sate in that part of the Temple that was called Gazith. This might be the occasion of bringing some to the Temple as parties to be judged, who were not admitted to the Ordinances of worship in the Court of Israel. Even as the prohibition of reading atheisticall or hereticall bookes, Sanhedrin cap. 11. sect. 1. was not violated by the Councels reading or searching of them for a Judiciall triall and examination: as is rightly observed by Dionysius Vossius, annot. in Maimon. de Idol. pag. 25.
And now having taken off the two principall objections, we shall take notice of such Scriptures as either directly, or at least by consequence prove, that notorious and scandalous sinners were not allowed to be admitted into the Temple, and partake in all the ordinances.
1. God reproveth not onelyonly the bringing of strangers into his Sanctuary, who were uncircumcised in the flesh, but the bringing of those who were uncircumcised in heart, that is, known to be such, for de secretis non judicat Ecclesia, Ezech. 44. 7, 9. Such ought not to have had fellowship in the holy things. No stranger uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my Sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. It is a law concerning proselytus domicilii, such proselytes as having renounced idolatry, and professing to observe the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah, were thereupon permitted to dwell and converse among the children of Israel. (Of which more elsewhere.) Such a one ought not be admitted into the Sanctuary, or place of the holy assemblies, there to pertake in all the Ordinances with the Church, unlesse he be both circumcised in flesh, and also in regard of his profession and practice a visible Saint, or one supposed to be circumcised in heart. The disjunction Nor tels us that if he were either uncircumcised in flesh, or known to be uncircumcised in heart, God did not allow him to be admitted to cōmunion with the children of Israel in al publik ordinances.
2. There is a Law, Deut. 23. 18. forbidding to bring the hire of a whore into the house of the Lord: and that because it was the price of a whore; how much more was it contrary to the will of God, that the whore her selfe, being knowne to be such, should be brought to the house of the Lord? For propter quod ununiqu…que est tale, id ipsum est magis tale. This argument is hinted by cDe monarchia lib. 2. proinde rectè honesté que vetitum est alicubi, ne merce… meretrici… inferatur in sacratium. Atqui nummi per se carent crimine, sed quae hos accepit unà cum suo quaestu est abominabilis.Philo the Jew.
3. The Lord sharply contendeth with those who did steale, murther, and commit adultery, and sweare falsely, and burne Incense to Baal, and yet presumed to come and stand before him in his owne house. Is this house which is called by my name, saith the Lord, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Ierem. 7. 9, 10, 11. A den of robbers is the place which receives robbers; and (saith Vatablus upon the place) as robbers after their robbing come to their denne, so doe these even after their stealing, murthering, &c. come to the Temple. To the same purpose is that challenge Ezech. 23. 38, 39. Moreover this they have done unto me, they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day, and have prophaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slaine their children to their Idols, then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to prophane it. But God would not have the Temple to be a receptacle for such. When Christ applieth that Scripture, Ierem. 7. against those who bought and sold in the Temple, Matth. 21. 12, 13. he makes it cleare, that the Temple was made a den of robbers, not onelyonly as it was made a place of gaine, or a den where the robbers prey lies, but even as it was a receptacle of the robbers or theeves themselves: therefore he is not contented with the overthrowing of the Tables of money-changers, and the seats of them that sold Doves, but he did also cast out all them that sold and bought in the Temple: that is, he would neither suffer such things, nor such persons in the Temple, yea though it was onelyonly in the utmost Court, or the Court of the Gentiles, as Grotius and Mr Selden thinke: how much lesse would he have suffered such persons in the Court of Israel. dLib. de Victimas offerentibus. Nam veri Dei Templum non pater profanis sacrificiis. Tali homini dicerem, obon…, non gaudet D…us centenis boum victimis &c. mavult pia… mentes &c▪Philo the Jew doth also apply what is said in the Prophets of Gods hating the Sacrifices of the wicked, even to the excluding of prophane men from the Temple. Mr. Selden de jure nat. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 5. doth so explaiue that casting out of the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, that the argument in hand is not a little strengthned thereby. He saith truly, that those who were cast out had polluted and profaned that holy place, ideo & ipsi, ut qui tum criminis aliorum participes, tum suo infames pariter, sie Templum seu montis Templi locum illum ipsis permissum profanabant, ejiciendi. He holdeth also that this which Christ did was done ex jure patrio, to wit, ex Zelotarum jure: and that else it had been challenged by the Priests and Scribes, if it had been contrary to the law or custome. Zelots, that is, private persons zealously affected, were permitted to scourge, wound, yea kill such as they saw publiquely committing atrocious wickednesse, by which the holinesse either of the name of God, or of the Temple, or of the Nation of the Jewes was violated. So Mr. Selden sheweth out of the Talmudists, Ib. cap. 4. Now (saith he) Zelotarum jure, our Saviour though a private person (for so he was lookt upon by the Priests and Scribes) did scourge and cast out the buyers and sellers. If so, then certainly such wicked and abominable persons were not allowed to come to the Temple; and if they did, they ought to have been judicially and by authority cast out; for that which was permitted to private persons in the executing of justice or inflicting of punishment, out of their zeale to the glory of God, was much more incumbent to such as had authority in their hands for correcting and removing the prophanation of the Temple in an authoritative, judiciall, and orderly way.
4. The Levites had a charge to let none that were uncleane in any thing enter into the Temple, 2 Chron. 23. 19. Now this is like that 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eate: an argument from the deniall of that which is lesse, to the deniall of that which is more. So here, it was a necessary consequence: If those that were ceremonially uncleane were to be excluded from the Temple, much more those who were morally or impiously uncleane. For, 1. the legall uncleannesse did signifie the sinfull uncleannesse; and the exclusion of those that were known to be legally uncleane from the Temple, did signifie the excluding of those who are knowne to be grossely and notoriously uncleane in their life and conversation. Which shall be abundantly confirmed afterwards. Therefore Bertramus de Rep. Ebr. cap. 7. saith rightly that the Levites had a charge to keepe from the Temple the uncleane aut etiam alio quovis modo indignos, or those also who were any otherwaies unworthy. 2. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 5. cap. 2. makes a comparison betweene the three degrees of the Jewish excommunication, and the three degrees of excluding the uncleane, Numb 5. 2. which parallel if we please to make then as for any of the three sorts of uncleannesse, the touch of the dead, issue, or leprosie, a man was excluded from the campe of God or the Sanctuary; so it will follow that even those who were cast out by the Niddui▪ or lowest degree of Excommunication, were fo… a time suspended from communion with the Church in the Ordinances. 3. The Levites were appointed to put a difference not onelyonly betweene the cleane and the uncleane, but betweene the holy and unholy, Levit. 10. 10. or betweene the holy and profane, Ezech. 22. 26. & 44. 23. By cleane and uncleane I understand persons or things that were ceremonially such; by holy and prophane, persons that were morally such.
5. I prove the same point from Psalm 118. 19, 20. open to me the gates of righteousnesse, I will goe into them, and will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter. The Chaldee saith, The gate of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord. The gates of Gods Sanctuary, are called gates of righteousness, saith Ainsworth on the place, because onelyonly the just and cleane might enter into them. We read also that it was written over the gates of some of the Jewish Synagogues, This is the gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter. *Haec porta &c. i. e. D…us hoc Templum sibi dicari voluit, hîc est sanctuarium ejus: debet pu…um esse ab omnibus sordibus, quemadmodum etiam lex severè jubet. Antehac impuri & scelerati (quales Saul, & alii omnes impii qui primas tenebant, i…a ut nemo non … ipsorum esse Templum) co…ruperant hoc templum. Non fuit igitur tam domicilium ipsius Dei, quamlatronum …verna.Vatablus upon this place, thinks that David speakes by way of antithesis to the former▪ pollution of the Sanctuary by Saul, and other wicked persons, who by comming to the house of God had made it a denne of thieve… ▪ But now the righteous shall enter in it. [The righteous] …on to such (saith Di…dati) and … to prophane persons, it belongeth to enter in there.
6. The same thing may be proved, from Psalm 15. 1. Lord who shall abide in thy Tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousnesse, &c. I know the chiefe intendment of God in this place is to describe such a one as is a true member of the Church invisible, and shall enter into the Heavenly Ierusalem. But certainly there is an allusion to the Sanctuary, and the holy hill thereof in Ierusalem, as to the type of that which is Spiriuall and eternall, which Iansenius upon the place noteth: and the Prophet here teacheth the people so to looke upon those offences for which men were excluded from the Sanctuary, as to learne what kind of persons are true members of the Church, and who not; who shall be allowed to commun…cate in all the Ordinances of the new Testament, and who not; who shall be received into everlasting life, and who not; and thus by the type he holds forth the thing tipyfied; Gesnerus upon the place thinkes that communion with the Church in this world is meant in the first words, Lord who shall sojourne (so the word is jagur in the Hebrew, foreign in the Greek) in thy Tabernacle. (the name of Tabernacle fitly expressing the moveable and military estate of the Church in this world:) and that reception into the Church Triumphant, is meant in the following words: who shall dwell in thy holy hill? which noteth a permanent and durable estate. The Chaldee Paraphrase expoundeth the whole, of such as were thought worthy to be admitted into the house of the Lord, thus, Lord who is worthy to abide in thy … … and who shall be worthy to sojourne in the mountaine of the house of thy holinesse. So Psalm 24. 3. the Chald… readeth thus, Who shall be worthy to ascend unto the mountaine of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord? So that the thing alluded unto in both these places, is that the Priests and Levites did admit … to the Sanctuary, but such as had the markes or characters there enumerated, so farre as men can …udge of these markes, that is so fa…e as they are externall and discernable.
7. The same thing seemeth also to be alluded unto Psalm 50. 16. Unto the wicked (the Chaldee addes, that repenteth not, and prayeth in his transgression) God saith, what hast thou to doe to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth. It is spoken to a scandalous prophane man, Vers. 18, 19, 20. who yet will needs take upon him a forme of godlinesse. eLib. 3. de vit… Mos…s: quem ne honoris quidem gratia …as est nominari ab omnibus… sed à solis optimis & purificatis hominibus.Where Philo the Jew speakes of him that blasphemed the name of the Lord, he addeth, that it was not lawfull for all men to name the name of God, no not for Honour or Religions sake, but onelyonly for good and holy men. And this gives me occasion to adde in conclusion a further confirmation out of the Hebrew Doctors. They held that an Israelite turning an Hereticke, (that is, denying any of their thirteen fundamentall Articles) to be as an Heathen man, and did therefore permit a Jew to lend to him upon usury even as to an Heathen. M. Selden de Jure nat. & Gentium. lib. 6. cap. 10. They held that such a one, an hereticall Israelite, had no communion with the Church of Israel. See Tzemach David translated by Hen. Vorstius pag. 67. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 3. dub. 5. & Ib. cap. 6. They esteemed an hereticall Jew, more hereticall then a Christian, and did excommunicate him, even summarily and without previous admonition. See Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 195. Moses Maimonides de fundam. legis. cap. 6. sect. 10. tels us that if an Epicurean Israelite had written a coppy of the booke of the Law, it was to be burnt, with the name of that Epicurean wretch, because he had not done it holily, nor in the name of God. They who did imagine the Scripture it selfe to be polluted and prophaned, when it came thorough the hands of an Epicurean, or Hereticall Israelite, no doubt, they thought the Temple polluted and prophaned, if such a one should be suffered to come and worship in it. From all which it appeareth, how much reason L'Empereur had to say, that they did not admit an Heretick into the inner part of the Intermurale, or that part of the Temple which divided between the Israelites and Heathens.
If any man shall aske, what I meane to inferre from all this. Must all prophane persons be kept back from our … …s and publike Assemblies, and so from hearing the word? I answer; God forbid. The Analogy which I understand is to hold between the Jewish and Christian Church, is this. As prophane persons were forbidden to enter into the Temple because of the sacramentall and typicall holinesse thereof (for the Temple was a Type of Christ) so prophane persons are now much more to be kept back from the Sacrament of the Lord Supper, which hath more of Sacramentall signification, mystery, and holinesse in it, then the Temple of Ierusalem had, and whereby more ample Evangelicall promises are set forth and sealed unto us. And as prophane persons might of old come into the Court of the Gentiles, and there heare the word preached in Solomons Porch (where both Christ and his Apostles did Preach Io. 10. 23. Act 3. 11. Act. 5. 12. which Porch was in the utmost Court, That is, the Court of the Gentiles: of which else-where out of Iosephus) but might not come into the Court of Israel, nor have communion in the Sacrifices: so prophane obstinate sinners are to be excluded, for their impiety, from the Church communion of Saints, though they may heare the word, as Heathens also may doe. Now that the Temple of Ierusalem had a Typicall Sacramentall resemblance of Christ, may appear plainly in divers particulars. 1. As the glory of the Lord dwelt in the Temple within the oracle, above the Arke and the Mercy seat; and at the dedication of the Temple, the cloud of the glory of the Lord did visibly fill the whole house; so in Christ the fulnesse of the God-head dwells bodily, as the Apostle speakes▪ 2. As the great God whom the heavens of heavens cannot containe, was yet pleased to dwell on earth, by putting his name in that place; so notwithstanding of the infinite distance between God and man, yet they are brought neer each to other, to have fellow-ship together in Jesus Christ. 3. God revealed his will, that he would accept no Sacrifices from his people, but in the Temple onelyonly, after it was built: So God hath revealed his will, that … spirituall Sacrifices cannot be acceptable to him, except in▪ Jesus Christ onelyonly. 4. The people of God were bound to set their Faces toward the Temple of Hierusalem, when they prayed 1. Kings 8. 30. 48. Dan. 6. 10. So are we bound in Prayer to looke toward Jesus Christ with an eye of faith 5. As there was an ample promise of God to heare the Prayers which should be made in that place 2. Chro. 7. 15, 16. so hath God promised to heare us and accept us, if we seeke unto him in and through Jesus Christ. 6. God said of the Temple, mine eyes and mine heart, shall be there perpetually. 2 Chro. 6. 16. so he said of Chri…t, This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. 7. There was but one Temple so but one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ saith Paul. 8. As the Temple was appointed to be a house of Prayer for all Nations Isa. 56. 7. and the s…ranger, as well as the Israelite, might come and pray in it 2 Chro. 6 32. So … is a propitiation, not for the Jewes onelyonly, but for the Gentiles; and whosoever beleeves on him, (Jew or Gentile) shall not be confounded. 9. Because of thy Temple at Hierusalem, shall Kings bring presents unto thee, saith the Prophet, Ps. 68. 29. so because of Jesus Christ (who hath got a name above every name, and hath received all power in heaven and earth) shall Kings submit themselves and bow the knee. 10. Glorious things were spoken of Ierusalem the City of God, but the Temple was the glory of Ierusalem: so glorious things are spoken of the Church, But Christ is the Churches glory. Other like considerations might be added, but these may suffice.