The scope of the Sermon is to show (upon a fair Issue with his accusers) that he was not guilty of the charge given in against him, that it did not follow, because he affirmed that Christ would destroy the Temple, and change the customs which M•ses delivered, that therefore he blasphemed either Moses or God; The Argument of his justification, is by an Historical Induction. 1. If Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ▪ and Joseph worshipped God without a Temple, and without such customs as Moses delivered, and Moses did without blasphemy against them, make that alteration which God was pleased to command him to make: Then the Worship of God is not peremptorily ⟨p. 3⟩confined to an outward Temple, or a Mosaical ministration. But Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph by obeying the commands and believing the promises of God, did acceptably worship him without a temple or Mosaical Ceremonies; therefore it is no blasphemy to say that God may so be worshipped. 2. Again, if Moses, a great, a learned, a mighty Ruler and Deliverer, did assure the people that a Prophet God would raise who should do as he had done, make new institutions, and set up a more excellent way of Worship, then it was no blasphemy against Moses or God, to say, that […] customs by him introduced should be by that Prophet altered. But Moses himself did teach the people thus to believe: Therefore Stephen teaching the same did not blaspheme Moses. 3. Again, that which was not blasphemy to affirm of the Tabernacle, though it were set up by Gods special appointment unto Moses, is not blasphemy to affirm of the Temple. But it was not blasphemy to affirm the use of the Tabernacle to have been temporary, and consequently alterable; therefore to affirm the same of the Temple is not blasphemy. Especially, since the Lord hath said, that he dwelleth not in Temples made with hands.
The scope of the Sermon is to shew (upon a fair Issue with his accusers) that he was not guilty of the charge given in against him, that it did not follow, because he affirmed that Christ would destroy the Temple, and change the customs which M•ses deliv•red, that therefore he blasphemed either Moses or God; The Argument of his justification, is by an Historical Induction. 1. If Abraham, Isaak, Iacob ▪ and Ioseph worshipped God without a Temple, and without such customs as Moses delivered, and Moses did without blasphemy against them, make that alteration which God was pleased to command him to make: Then the Worship of God is not peremptorily ⟨p. 3⟩confined to an outward Temple, or a Mo•aical ministration. But Abraham, Isaak, Iacob and Ioseph by obeying the commands and beleeving the promises of God, did acceptably worship him without a •emple or Mosaical Ceremonies; therefore it is no blasphemy to say that God may so be worshipped. 2. Again, if Moses, a great, a learned, a mighty Ruler and Deliverer, did assure the people that a Prophet God would raise who should do as he had done, make new institutions, and set up a more excellent way of Worship, then it was no blasphemy against Moses or God, to say, that 〈…〉 customs by him introduced should be by that Prophet altered. But Moses himself did teach the people thus to beleeve: Therefore Stephen teaching the same did not blaspheme Moses. 3. Again, that which was not blasphemy to affirm of the Tabernacle, though it were set up by Gods special appointment unto Moses, is not blasphemy to affirm of the Temple. But it was not blasphemy to affirm the use of the Tabernacle to have been temporary, and consequently alterable; therefore to affirm the same of the Temple is not blasphemy. Especially, since the Lord hath said, that he dwelleth not in Temples made with hands.
