quently in their nature and constitution, are purely sacred, Of the former sort are kingdoms and nations and incorporate towns, and the like; they are in their very nature, because they are from their ends, purely civil. There are those that are purely sacred, as churches; the very end and design, upon which they are collected, is worship and religion. But now families are the elements of both these sorts of societies; that is, both churches and commonwealths are made up of families. Therefore both these must meet in a family, religion, and civil and secular business; for the other societies, some whereof are purely sacred, others purely civil, do arise out of families. Persons are elements of families; families are the elements, of which both churches and kingdoms or commonwealths are composed and made up. And as the one sort of these is purely civil, the other purely sacred; that which is elementary unto both, must be both. And therefore now, when any come to turn this matter in their thoughts, "I am the head of a family; but what sort of society is my family? Is it made purely for this world, or for the world to come?" Sure, where the consideration of both worlds meet, the other world should be superior or uppermost; and therefore all things must be measur ed there with subserviency and reference to that. But if any will say, "No; families are made only for this world;" then I would ask, What is this world made for ? Is it made for nothing? Or is it made for itself, to centre in itself, and to be its own end? You can never avoid it, but that families must be supremely and ultimately made for the other world; and then they are made for religion principally and chiefly, And no man can behave himself well in any station or relation in a family, that doth not let this thought lie deep in his mind; "My family, as well as others, is a constitution, made for religion, as well as for other businesses." For where both meet, that must certainly be principal.

A

SERMON IV.*

IN speaking of family-religion, the method proposed was, to evince the obligation to it, in reference to the substance of the thing, and then in reference to the frequency of it.

I. To the substance of the thing; that there ought to be such a thing as family-religion. The two last discourses + have been employed in the proof of this. We proceed to speak somewhat also,

II. To the more doubted frequency of such religious exercises, as lie within the compass of families, or whereof families are to be the stated seats: how often, or at what seasons such family-worship ought to be. And in reference to this,

1. I would suggest some few things, by way of preparation. As,

(1.) That it will greatly concern us all to get an habitual spirituality inwrought into the temper of our souls, in order to our making a right judgment of this matter; when, at what time, how often we ought to apply ourselves to the exercises of such family-religion. If there be a frame of spirit suitable to the general rules of practical religion and godliness, the determination of this matter will be very easy. But if there be a prevailing carnality, nothing will be more difficult. And let • me in this but appeal to your own reason, to that common understanding that belongs to us as we are an intelligent sort of creatures that is, you would be loath in other instances to

:

• Preached December 31, 1693. See page 392, &c.

commit any cause, wherein you are concerned, especially if your all were concerned in it, to the judgment of an enemy, if you could help it. But "the carnal mind is enmity against God;" not only an enemy, but enmity itself. And I beseech you, do you think, that an enemy to God can be your friend? Therefore let not a carnal mind make a judgment in this case; whatsoever you do, let it not be judged by that measure; but labour to get an habitual spirituality inwrought into your souls, and then the judgment of this case will lie very easy.

(2.) We should look upon family-religion, not merely under the notion of a duty, and as imposed; but as a privilege and a singular vouchsafement of grace, that there may be such a thing; that God will be invocated, or even mentioned in our families, in the families of such wretched creatures as we, who inhabit the dark and dismal region of this lower world; that God will have worship ascend and go up to him from off our earth, and out of our houses and families. Look upon it as a marvellous vouchsafement of grace; and that will greatly facilitate the determination of this case also. And nothing can he more opprobrious to us than not to think so: that, when God doth so far vouchsafe to let his tabernacle be with men on earth; "Every tabernacle of yours shall be my tabernacle; if you consent, if you do not shut me out, you shall no where have a tabernacle but what shall be mine; I, the high and lofty One that inhabit eternity, am content to cohabit with you, and to have your house for my sanctuary." What a vouchsafement is this! and how opprobrious a thing not to count it so!

It hath been accounted so, even in the very Pagan world. A divine presence, to have a præsto numen, a numen at hand and ready, how great a privilege hath it been reckoned! In the dark and dismal days of popery, when that hath been regnant, what a terrible thing hath it been accounted to excommunicate a nation; to put it under an interdict, that there should be no religion in that nation? Our own records tell us, how such a thing hath been understood and resented in this land in former days. And if we look farther and farther back into the days of paganism, I remember Cæsar in his commentaries * tells us, that the ancient Gauls did reckon

* Si quis aut privatus aut publieus, eorum (nempe druidum) decreto non steterit, sacrificiis interdicunt. Hæc pœna apud eos est gravissima. Quibus ita est interdictum, ii numero impiorum ac sceleratorum habentur; iis omnes decedunt, aditum eorum sermonemque defugiunt, ne quid ex contagione incommodi accipiant : neque iis petentibus jus redditur, neque honos ullus communicatur. Cæsar. de Bell, Gallic, L. 6, sect. 13, edit, Cler.

no more terrible punishment could be put upon them, than to be interdicted the sacrifices. And by that means it was, that their Arch-flamens ruled over them; they were mere absolute governors among that people, because if they would not be prescribed to and directed by them in every case, if they would not suffer them to take up all controversies among them, they would presently forbid them the sacrifices; than which no penalty was reckoned more, nor any so grievous.

Now let us consider the matter so. What if instead of being bidden to pray in our families, we should be forbidden to pray in them! Make but that fearful supposition, to see how it will relish with you. Suppose there should be a particular interdict upon your house; suppose by some special signification of the mind of God from heaven it should be said, "I will allow all the neighbouring houses to call upon me, but I will have no worship out of your house; let all the rest in the street worship me, and I will hear and accept them, but from your house, I will accept no sacrifice, I will hear no prayer." What a terrible doom were this! What a dark and horrid cloud would be drawn over that habitation, if it should be said, "Here shall be no prayer, here shall be no mention of the name of God!" So that, as in a like case represented to us in reference to the people of the Jews, the poor forlorn members of that family should say, "We may not make mention of the name of the Lord." Amos 6. 10. What a dismal thing were this! Labour but to get your souls possessed with the apprehension, that the liberty of family-worship is a great privilege; and let that be forelaid in your minds, when you come to determine with yourselves about the frequency, how often we shall solace ourselves with this gracious vouchsafement of God from heaven unto us. Then it will be no hard thing to determine. And take this also,

(3.) That in reference to the determination of this matter, the same consideration is to be had of family-religion, that we formerly told you was to be had of religion in general; that is, that it ought to be considered, either as a homage to God, or as an advantage to ourselves. And so it will be easy hence to determine, that the exercise of family-religion ought to be so frequent, as religion considered under this twofold notion doth require; as frequent as a homage to God is to be paid, and as our own spiritual advantage is to be sought: as frequently as that can be in consistency with the other necessary affairs of human life. For indeed nothing is plainer, and that therefore must with less hesitancy be granted, then that nothing can be at that time necessary, when that which is inconsistent with it,

is truly necessary. That must be acknowledged. But then there is a great deal of caution to be used in judging of this necessity, that shall exclude for this or that time so great a thing as a solemn exercise of religion out of a family. It must be a great thing, that shall prevail to exclude that.

But let me ask myself the question; "I am one that oweth a homage to God, and so doth my family. When do I not Owe it? And when doth my family not owe it; so that if 1 have opportunity, consistent with the other necessary occasions of human life, that opportunity should not be taken?" And whereas religion, and so family-religion, is a means of advantage to ourselves and them, as well as a homage to God; when can it be said, I stand in no need of the exercises of religion, or that those under my care do not, when those exercises can be had consistently with the other necessary occasions of human life? These things being premonished,

2. I shall now offer somewhat by way of determination of the propounded case. As,

(1.) Nothing is plainer, than that the exercises of familyreligion ought to be daily. That seems out of all question, Every day will I bless thee. Psalm 145. 2. A synecdochical expression of religion; and that cannot be understood for any reason reaching a particular persop, which will not reach a family too. And so the same thing is to be said to that in psalm 141. 2. Let my prayer be set before thee as incense; (that was stated solemn prayer ;) and the uplifting of my hands as the evening sacrifice. That is; every evening let it go up as incense. That was a juge sacrificium, a daily solemnity. So look to that direction given us by our Lord, to pray for our daily bread, day by day. He tieth us not indeed to the use of those very words. So the instruction being given occasionally, plainly enough signifieth, that he did not intend this direction. as a form; but that he directs it only as a summary or a form to be used with Christian wisdom and understanding, in enlarging upon the particulars contained in that prayer, and to guide and direct ourselves hereby in our solemn addresses unto God. Though also the use of these very words, as they lie, no body can doubt to be lawful; yet, that they are enjoined, and so made necessary, there is little reason to aflirm. But however, take them as a general direction in reference unto prayer; they signify that the things to be prayed for are to be daily prayed for. "Give us this day our daily bread :" this day. At the same time, when we pray for all other things contained in that prayer, we are to pray too for daily bread. And that this is