MATTHEW WEE N, I). D.

least wise by way of Collection for them all, take we but God’s Way here,e Xprefs we one by another that’s next to it, the Fear of God by the Fear of*h e King. The Text you see joyns them so close, that it makes but one,aud the fame Act for two Objects, God and the King; two Persons, but con-joyned in one Act of our Fear, both made one in that, Fear God my Son, andthe King ■ to make us know, that what holy Pretences soever are made for it,Jset God is not feared, if the King be not; the Want of Performance in the° n e, implies Imperfection in the other ; and the Want of Truth in the one,av ouches Hypocrisy in the other ; no King’s Fear, no God’s Fear ; God him-klf of Purpose hath here joined them together, and ’tis to make God a Liar,a Man’s self sacrilegious, if any dare take either from other, or put themsunder.

And the Reason of it is impregnably good, or else the blessed Spirit in St.John was but a poor Logician. For did you ever mark it, how he enforcesabsolute Necessity of brotherly Love among us? He hath two Arguments*°gether for it, i John iv. 20. If any Man fay, 1 love God and hateth bis Bro-ther, he is a Liar ; for how can he that loveth not his Brother whom he hathfan, love Godwhbm be hath not Jeen? That’s the first, and it is a topic Rule,seat particularly applied by him on this Ground, because of the generalWage of God, which is upon a Man’s Brother; he fees not him, but he seesGod’s Image in him, and God he sees not, but in some Image of him, andsee liveliest Image of God is in his Brother, & ergo , in very good Reason then,how can he that loveth not his Brother, whom he hath Jeen, love God,

'®hom he hath not Jeen ? No, he cannot; the Question, how can he ? ishut to make the Negation more vehement, it is a Thing impossible in very

Reason.

' The other Argument of St. John is, ah authoritate , a sufficient Reasonmat in itself, that we are commanded it, but yet it is steeled with the Temper°f another topic Rule also, because where oneThing is ordained to be with ano-ler , there the one is not as it should be without the other. Now this Com-niandment have vie of him, faith he; what ? Float we Jloould love oar Bro-ther? No, that’s not enough, But that he which loveth God Ooould love bisBrother also, Ver. 21. That’s the second.

Carry then now but these two Arguments in Mind, and conclude who willser my Text and the King, and the Spirit here will warrant him ; but reply0r deny who can, for the Spirit will confound him. As good as those Argu-ments are in St. John for his Purpose, for the Love of our Brother, I dareseselly fay it, and let me forget my Arts and Judgment too, if I make it notsepear to any honest Man’s Conscience, that they are far more pregnant hereot b for our Purpose, for the Fear of the King.

I begin with the first, and I apply it expressly, if any Man fay, I fear\°se and feareth not the King, he is a Liar, and Lord ! what an holy ArmyLiars might we then quickly muster up ? But what’s the Reason ? Fort°w Can j ie ,p that is, it is impossible for him, that feareth not the King,^om he hath seen, to fear God, whom he hath not seen. And why so ?sow follows that ? from the very fame Ground as before, because of theUl5 ge of God, which is upon Kings, and that not only a general Image,^seey are Men, hut as a peculiar Image, and that, bv far more visible, asC ? c y are Kings ; yea, the Image of that in God, for which Fear belongs to,*°se that Image upon the King, the lively Image of his Divine Power, and^sery both.

senver st st, whether Power to do good, and therefore fear him, For withl>n is Mercy , therefore shall he be feared , Psalm exxx. 4. or Power to do'

Hurt,

I 27