A Work worth the Reading.  
Wherein is contained, five profitable and pithy Questions, very expedient, aswell for Parents to perceive how to bestow their Children in marriage, and to dispose their goods at their death: as for all other Persons to receive great profit by the rest of the matters herein expressed.  
Newly published by Charles Gibbon.  The wisdom of a man cometh by using well his vacant time, and he that ceaseth from his own matters and labour, may come by wisdom. Eccles. 38. 24. 
LONDON Imprinted by Thomas Orwin: and are to be sold by Henry Kyrkham, dwelling at the little North door of S. Paul's Church, at the sign of the Black Boy. 1591.   

To the Right Worshipful, Sir Nicholas Bacon Knight: long life in prosperity, with endless joy by Mortality.  
IAakob could not bear the unkindness of Laban, but departed from him: David could not suffer the discourtesy of Hanun, but attempted war. The Heathen Man made a Law to punish unthankful persons with death: And Solomon saith, He that rewardeth evil for good, evil shall never departed from his house. These examples and sayings (right Worshipful) although they be manifest in many to practise, they be impertinent in this place to repeat; for I fear no ingratitude for my goodwill, though I merit displeasure for my presumption. But where the Unicorn drinketh all infection is driven away, where the Bear breatheth no other beasts will feed, where lenity harboureth no misliking can happen. It was boldly done of sinaeta's to offer Cyrus a handful of water, or of the Persian to give Artaxerxes the like; they being beggars by ability, those being Kings by calling, and the presents far unfit for Princes. Yet their willingness in accepting, did bewray the worthiness of their calling: for as the tree is known by the fruit, the gold by the touch, the bell by the sound: even so is a man's birth by his benevolence, his honour by his humility, his calling by his courtesy, and indeed true Gentility should observe one thing by the Lark, which although he mounts never so high in the air, yet he buildeth his nest very low on the earth. I presume with these poor men to offer a book no better worth than their water, and I hope by the courtesy of these kings your worship will accept of it as it is, measuring the matter by the mulberry, which will ever be red though it be not ripe, but if the tree be full of blossoms and bear not, we commonly impute the fault to the rigorous weather, and not to the root, and if my book carry a great show without substance, I trust your Worship will attribute the defect to my ignorance and not to my benevolence: for he that diggeth in the coalpit would work in mineral if he might, and he that bloweth the fire would fashion the jewel if he could, the twig must have much time to grow ere it be great, and I more liberty to practise, ere I be perfect: All men writ not according to their learning, but their leisure, Apelles drew the picture of Venus in the beginning very rude, by continuance very rare, so he that at the first by his attempts appears simple, at length may prove singular, Demosthenes did mend his stammering with much striving against the hill, and so shall I my learning with more labour in study, yet he that carrieth mortar though he be no mason, is not to be blamed because he furthereth the building; neither is he that shows his diligence, though he cannot do well, to be reprehended, because of his good disposition: we mislike not the Tailor, so he can mend where he maketh a fault in the garment, neither aught any to discourage that Author, so he may correct, where he comitteth an escape in his writing, considering what difference there is between cutting with the hand, and conceiving with the head: But I hope your Worship (in whom the pure word of GOD is planted) will carry Moecenae mind, to further and favour aswell the forward as the famous writers, and then shall my Treatise, though it be simple have good success: it sufficeth me although it be but barbarous, that it hath been allowed by my betters, or whatsoever it be, so it be well accepted of your Worship, I crave no other reward, than your patronage of this enterprise though it be simple, and your pardon for my good will if I offend. Thus being loath to trouble your worship with many words, referring the oversight hereof to your grave censure, humbly submitting myself to your courtesy, I commit the tuition of your W. to the Almighty.  
Your Worships to command, CHARLES GIBBON.   

To the indifferent Reader.  
I Was in a doubt after I had finished this treatise, whether I should publish it, or pull it a pieces, I thought it too base to be read, and better worth than to rend, but seeing I have bestowed some pains in the penning, I mean to hazard my hap in the printing, he shall write well that can satisfy all, and he as bad that can please none, if Christ could not content all, being a God, it is no marvel we mislike many, being but men; In times past they did not care how plain a thing were, so it were profitable, and now we force not how bad it be, so it be pleasant, it is this that maketh so many writers employ their time more wanton than wisely, because they see a vain trifle is more accepted than a divine treatise. If it be so, that those books which are most light are best liked, and those men that employ their learning to levity, are most laudable, than the tenor will but impair the title of my book: for it will not be worth the reading: but (good Reader) thou must observe in writing, the manner of it according to the matter, we must not paint the Scriptures with superfluous speeches, as men do their own fictions after their fancies: for the majesty of the word requireth modesty in the wrter, this is not unlike that gem Chalazias, which will be cold though it be cast in the fire or the Choral, which is best without colouring, those be like water which is apt to any colour as it hath course, or the Chameleon which will change itself into any hew it beholds, but this I am sure, there is none can afford so fruitful a phrase as the Bible, though they practise never so fine terms in their books; I speak this not to that end I would gloze to get credit by my words, or to disgrace those that deserve it by their works, but to show what difference there is between a pleasant story (which we may handle according to our humours) and a grave discourse (which must be penned according to the platform.) Well seeing my former attempts have found such favour, my care shall be the less for the latter, for this I know, that the envious will spite, be a thing never so special, the flatterer will soothe, be it never so simple, the idle will inveigh, be they never so ignorant, and there are some will find fault, be they never so foolish; (were not he a wise man could stop all their mouths?) but my meaning is not to satisfy such readers which be rude, but reasonable, not the curious but the courteous, the one will excuse and cover a fault with discretion, the other will but carp and cavil without cause: so farewell. Bury S. Edmond in Suffolk.  
Yours Charles Gibbon.   

Whether the Election of the Parents is to be preferred before the affection of their Children in Marriage.  The Speakers are 

Philogus.  
Tychicus.   Two lovers of Learning. Philogus 
THere is an old verse which retains his old virtue being as credible for antiquity as truth,  
It is this; 
When Adam digged and Eve span  
who was then a Gentleman?  
Then came a rich churl and gathered good,  
and so came in the gentle blood.  Wherein appears that the ground of gentility began with goods: for (as the wiseman saith) have not all men one entrance into life and a like going out. Sap. 7. 6. are we not equal by creation, heirs by adoption, brothers by profession, and yet it is a strange thing to see what preciseness of Petigrees, and difference of bloods there is amongst us, the days have been, that Kings would bestow their daughters upon plain men, and yet thought it no disparagement of blood, as Saul, who bestowed his daughter Michol 1. Sam. 18. 27. upon David being but a simple shepherd; that Lords would have matched their sons with mean men's daughters, and yet account it no blemish to their birth, as Sechem the son of Hemor, who joined with Dinah, the daughter of jaakob, he was a Lord's son that ruled a whole Country, Gen. 34. 1, 2. she, a plain man's daughter that dwelled in tents, Gen. 25. 27. The time was when rich men would have taken poor women to their wives, and yet never made any respect of their portions, as Boaz did Ruth, he was a man of great authority and riches. Ruth 2. 1. as some think judge of Israel judg. 12. 8. she, a poor woman, that glened upon his land for her living. But now it is no match amongst us, where the parties be not answerable in birth, and agreeable in abilities, where indeed the best gentility consist in piety, and the most wealth in contentment.  
I thought good to use this preamble for this purpose. There is old Cleanthes an ancient Gentleman, who is adorned aswell with the affluency of fortune, for great possessions, as with the excellency of Nature, for good properties; he hath amongst many children but one daughter (yet a sister to every son,) this maid is very desirous to marry, and hath made her choice of such a one, as is both of a goodly composition of body, and of a godly disposition of mind. Yet as he is proper and well disposed, so he is very poor, insomuch as her father by reason of the baseness of his lineage, and bareness of his living, will not allow of her liking, but hath appointed her another, which both by parentage and portion may countervail her calling and his contentment, yet nothing answerable to his daughter's desire, because for his years he may rather be her father than her husband, which as he cannot be the first, so he is so far from the latter that she will rather be martyred than married to him, now in this case whether is the affection of the child to be preferred before the election of the father.  Tichi. 
You produce your preamble (as it seemeth) to impugn and reprove such as (upon circumstances of parentage and possessions) will permit or prohibit marriage, and therefore before I answer your proposition, I will say somewhat to your protestation. You bring an old verse to prove that gentility began with goods. Indeed goods in these days add a grace to many, yet gentry hath not his beginning all of one ground. Some have been base borne, yet came to great estimation, not by their possessions, but by their valiant exploits, as Jephtha, being son of a harlot: judg. 11. 1. became judge of Israel. judg. 12. 7. Others have been poor, and yet came to great promotion, not for their wealth, but their wisdom; as joseph who being an abject of his brethren, Gen. 37. 4. became fellow to king Pharaoh, and was made governor over all Egypt Gen. 41. 40. and in these days amongst us, many come to preferment, not for their living, but learning, not by progeny but prows, not by desert, but descent: notwithstanding I affirm your sayings that as touching the bare birth, a king hath no better beginning than a beggar, or in respect of the ordinary end, the Prince hath no privilege above the poor; for as both proceed from a woman, so both shall feed the worms; yet that followeth not although all be made of one metal, none should be more excellent in majesty, or albeit none be noble by nature, any should not be renowned by calling: for as many differ in degrees of dignity, so according to their title and authority they are to be preferred, and what renown the predecessor doth purchase by his life, it descendeth by succession to his posterity after him. You proceed further & say, that kings would bestow their children upon plain men, and for proof you bring in saul's daughter and David? this example nothing availeth: for David had her, not by intercession, but upon condition, if he had not slain Goliath he had gone without her, 1. Sam. 17. 25. Yet are you advised of David's answer after he should have her, What am I (saith he) and what is my life, or the family of my father in Israel, that I should be son in Law to the King. 1. Sam. 18. 18. Herein he doth show his unworthiness to match with such a man's daughter (I mean for pedigree, not for piety) & this argueth that in those days they had a special respect of parentage? And Lords (say you) would match with mean men's children, & for this you infer Shechem and Dinah; you must note, although he were a Lords son he played a lewd part to deflower her, & therefore no doubt it was the filthiness of the fact that forced him to marry her. Yea & rich men (say you) would take poor women to their wives, as Boaz did Ruth, still you strive against the stream, for Boaz was her kinsman, & therefore was to take her by the title of affynity according to God's law as it was commanded. If brethren dwell together, & one of them die & have no son, (as she had not) the wife of the dead shall not marry to a stranger, but his kinsman shall go in to her and take her to wife, and do the kinsman's office to her. Deut. 25. 5, 6, 7. So that your preamble is impertinent: for where parties be matched equally according to their birth and abilities there is ever best agreement. Now to your question: Whether the election of the father is to be preferred before the affection of the child. This is as easy to answer as to ask: The ten commandments teach children to honour and submit themselves to their parents, therefore if they contract & couple contrary to their contentation, they rather rebel than obey them.  Phi. 
It is true indeed but you know the common by word, It is the eye of the master, that fatteth the horse, and the love of the maid that maketh the liking, she that matcheth herself after another's mind, is like him that fitteth his foot by another's last: one is often wrong with his shoes in the wearing, the other often vexed with her husband after wedding, either let us link to our own liking or else better unborn, than living.  Tich. 
Your talk tendeth only to sensual circumstances altogether preposterous from the proposition: for the word of God hath given parents great prerogative over their children, even in this matter concerning Marriage; insomuch as no contract (much less any conjunction) can be lawful unless the parents allow it, according as it is written. If a woman vow a vow unto the Lord and bind herself by a bond being in her Father's house in the time of her youth, and her Father hear her vow & bond wherewith she hath bound herself, and her Father hold his peace concerning her, than all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound herself shall stand. But if her father disallow her the same day that he heareth all her vows and bonds wherewith she hath bound herself, they shall not be of value, and the Lord will forgive her: because her father disallowed her. Nomb. 30. 4▪ 5, 6. Hereof it is that where the maid was taken away and abused, albeit she was afterward married to the man that did it, yet he was to pay a piece of money to her father, because he had not his preconsent, as it is written, If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her, he shall endow her and take her to his wife, If her father refuse to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the Dowry of Virgins. Exod. 22. 16, 17. It is more fully confirmed in Deuter. 22. 28, 29. If a man find a maid that is not betrothed, and take her and lie with her and they be found, Then the man that lay with her, shall give unto the maids father fifty Shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her, he cannot put her away all his life, yea Saint Paul himself doth approve the superiority of Parents in this respect, for (saith he) If any man think that it is uncomely for his Virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them be married, 1. Cor. 7. 36. And hereto agreeth the same saying of the wise man, Marry thy daughter, and so thou shalt perform a weighty work. Eccles. 30. I could amplify the matter very much, but these are sufficient to resolve you, that children cannot match without their Parents consent.  Phi. 
Alas, you do not consider the innumerable inconveniences that be incident to those parties which be brought together more for lucre than love, more for goods than good will, more by constraint than consent, nay more than that, you do little way the inequality of years, the contrariety of natures between age and youth, is there no difference between the withered Beech and the flourishing Bay tree, no opposition between frost and flowers, or is it possible that oxen unequally yoked should draw well together? if you would confer all these circumstances together with the accidents you shall find that such an husband, is an hell to a tender Virgin, and that such a marriage, is the beginning of all misery, and no doubt he that bestows his daughter no better, shall abridge her grief, by following her to the grave. So that I conclude, seeing marriage is of great moment, not for a month but a whole life time, there is no reason, but he or she that entereth into that bond, should make their own bargain: because it is they that must abide by it.  Tich. 
You still continue your carnal positions, to confirm your crazed opinion, as though the prescript rule of God's book, where to be impugned by the natural reason of man's brain. If a man may give his goods to whom he will, he may as well bestow his Children where he thinketh best, for Children are the goods of the Parents? So it seemeth by that which God himself said to Satan, when he earnestly desired to deal with job, All that he hath (saith the Lord) be in thy hands. job. 1. 12. If you look into the old law, you shall find that Parents might sell their Children to supply their necessity, as appear in Exod. 21. 7. If a man sell his daughter to be a servant etc. Laban did little better than make a benefit of his daughters before he bestowed them: For by Jacob's servitude it appeareth he made a sale of them, and so they could say themselves afterward. Gen. 31. 15. Therefore if Parents had this great privilege then (which is almost importable) why should they be barred of this benefit now, not in selling but in bestowing them (which is so reasonable) you allege it is good reason they should make their own bargain, because they must abide it; as though parents would seek the prejudice of their own children, but what liberty of liking had Leah to jaakob, who instead of her sister Rahel was brought to his bed, Gen. 29. 23. This argueth that parents would dispose their children at their pleasure.  Phi. 
I perceive by your speech you so much prefer the parents, that you altogether enjoin their children to an inconvenience; that is, not to match to their own liking but as their parents list, as though they ought not to show aswell a fatherly affection, as they look for filial obedience.  Tich. 
You mistake both the matter and my meaning, for albeit parents ought to yield their consent to their children's choice, yet they have no power to provoke them to marry, if necessity urgeth not, hereof saith Paul. He that standeth firm in his heart that he hath no need, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his Virgin he doth well. 1. Cor. 7. 37. neither may they deprive them of that remedy if they cannot live continent, for it is better to marry than burn. ibid. vers 9 nay more than that, the parents must presently provide for them as a duty enjoined to them, which the same Apostle proveth in these words, Let them be married 1. Cor. 7. 36. neither may they enforce them to any match, if their children mislike; we have example thereof in Rebecca, for when the servant (who should have her) whom Abraham sent was requested that she might remain ten days before their departure, his expedition was such that he had rather go away without her, than tarry to take her: whereupon her parents called her, to ask her consent, and to know whether she would go with that man or no, her answer was, she would: Gen. 24. 27. etc. this argueth that parents must not use any coaction, where their children have no disposition to the party.  Phi. 
Yet all this is to no purpose to the question I propose, for the maid neither meaneth to live single as a Virgin, yet she cannot be suffered to match to her mind, as she would do: now in this case whether may the perversity of the parents hinder the choice of the child?  Tich. 
It is needless to add a double answer to a single question, or to demand a reason where there is no doubt, your word perversity, is so termed of the wilful, but it is taken for prudency amongst the wise; for they know that it is the property of parents, not to deal frowardly but fatherly with their children, and to bestow them not as they desire, without discretion; but as is most expedient; with circumspection: but admit, that Parents be sometime perverse, shall children be pernicious, or (as we commonly say) drive out one nail with another? God forbidden, they must win them by petition, not provocation; by obedience, not obstinacy. The parents joy depend upon their children, and therefore their evil placing, turn to their displeasure, did not Esau by taking wives, contrary to his father's will, procure his sorrow, insomuch as his mother said, It should not avail her to live if his Brother jaacob did bestow himself so, Gen. 27. 46. let then the example of Esau dehort the disobedient which care more to please their fancies, than their fathers, and let jaacob be an imitation to the dutiful, which prefer their father's precept, before their own pleasure: and to resolve you more fully I will show some apparrant examples that shall approve the submission of children to their parents in this respect; Sechem, the son of a Lord having deflowered Dinah, although (by reason of the filthiness of the fact) it was more time for him to marry the maid, than to motion the matter, yet before he would marry he craved his father's good will, as appeareth in the text for it is there said, He said to his father Hamer, get me this maid to wife, Gen. 34. 1, etc. If the consent of Parents was observed as a principle amongst the very Infidels, how much more ought we to be careful of it that be Christians▪ Samson was judge of Israel, and a strong and valiant man, yet falling in love with Dalilah he did not satisfy his lust without his father's liking: for he said to his Father, Give me her to wife. judg. 14. 2. Ruth was content to be ruled by Naomi her mother in law, yea even in this matter concerning her marriage. Ruth. 3. 5. then how much more ought we to submit our consents to our natural parents? Many such examples I could insert, but these may satisfy a sensible man in a reasonable matter.  Phi. 
I have permitted your sperch hitherto, not because I could not prevent your Apology, but that I was desirous to learn what you could allege; and now I plainly see, that a fierce stream hath no stay, if it be not stopped in time, nor your arguments an end, if they be not intercepted; to the matter, I confess that children are commanded to obey their Parents, yet I affirm they must not in many things approve their proceed, for their limits are prescribed, They must obey them in the Lord: for this is right, (saith Paul) Ephes. 6. 1. if parents will provoke their children to marry with Infidels they may not: for they have no warrant by the word of God. 2. Cor. 6. 14.  Tich. 
Yet the same Apostle saith, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. 1. Cor. 7. 14. What say you to this?  Philog. 
I thought by taking your rise so rashly you would leap short: for there are three things to be observed which you overslipped in those words, the cause that provoked him: 1. the persons he respected; 2. the end he aimed at; 3. the cause that provoked him was to answer an objection against such as thought that the godly should be defiled by the society of the wicked, which he cotrarieth in the same chapped. vers. 14. the persons he respected, were such as were so already contracted, to prevent those that under that pretence might take occasion purposely to separate themselves, which we may gather by the 15. verse. the end he chief aimeth at, was to premonish the unmarried not to match in that manner as appeareth in the 2. Cor. 6. 14. 15. Be not (saith he) unequally yoked with Infidels: then he showeth a reason, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, & what communion hath light with darkness, and what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath the believer with the Infidel? So having answered your objection, I will iterate where you interrupted me: As children may not intercommon with Infidels, so their parents may not urge them to match with idolaters, or such like because it is prohibited.  Tich. 
And yet it is nothing respected in these days, for in marriages amongst us, we make no regard of godliness, but goods, of righteousness, but riches, how well, but how wealthy, they be made: be he Atheist, be he Papist, be he Neuter, we respect not the man, but his money, not his life, but his living, not his profession, but his promotion; and therefore I see no reason, but that they may deal with idolaters. The Israelites a chosen people of God did intercovenant with the Gentiles which were great idolaters. judg. 3. 6. Solomon that prudent king took the daughter of king Pharaoh. 1. King. 3. 1. & David that holy man, matched with the daughter of king Saul, yet Pharaoh and Saul were gross Idolaters.  Phi. 
I see you strive to wring water out of the pumice, or else you would never waste the time with such words, doth it follow because most in marriage have regard of goods, that I by their example should impair God's glory, why we are taught, not to follow a multitude in evil. Did the Israelites intercovenant with the Gentiles? why they did contrary to the commandment of God: Deut. 7. 3. Yet the Lord did not let them pass unpunished. judg. 3. 8. Did Solomon marry an Idolatrous wife? why he was drawn to Idolatry by them, & what followed; he incurred the wrath of God for his wickedness. 1. King. 11. 14. As for that act of David it cannot animate us, seeing the example of divers may deter us, neither is it expedient for any to presume of God's power, without his will. Now having answered your digression, I will proceed where I left, I say still, that the glory of God not the motions of men, his praise not their practices are to be preferred in every thing, as in this matter concerning marriage; we ought indeed to obey our earthly parents, yet we must not dishonour one eternal father, for we are taught by the Apostle Peter to obey God more than man. Act. 5. 29. We ought to love our worldly parents, yet we must not offend our heavenvly father: for, He that loveth father & mother more than me is not worthy of me, (saith Christ) Mat. 10. 37. we ought to fear our natural parents, that have government of our bodies, yet we must be more afraid of our celestial Father, which preserves both body and soul, and is able to cast them into hell fire Mat. 10. 28. whereupon I ground my argument, that if Parents will proffer and impose upon their children such a match as tendeth more to profit, than piety, more to content their greedy desire for lucre, than their children's godly choice for love, as this man hath done to his daughter, neither they nor this maid ought to depend on their Parents in this point: what greater occasion of incontinency can be given, than to match a young and lusty maid against her own mind, with an infirm and decrepit person to satisfy an others pleasure? what a cross contract would this be? and shall not the maid (who hath made a fit choice to her own mind) marry, unless she take such an old man, against her mind? what say you, shall the severity of of her Father abridge her liberty, or deprive her of the lawful remedy? Nay more than that, shall the maid increase in sin for want of her desire, because her father will not yield his consent, unless it be to her disliking? I say no. The Apostle telleth us, It is better to marry than burn, and yet she shall keep her within the bounds of obedience, because she doth it not of purpose in contempt of her parents, but in regard of God's glory to avoid the occasion of evil.  Tich. 
Indeed I must needs confess that to match a young maid with an old man, it is miserable: nay then that which is more admirable, some man that hath lived single above sixty years, will (upon a little fleshly fancy) needs to the world; yet he will sooner angle for a frog than a fish; I mean, he will sooner catch a light minion, than couple with a grave matron, and as the world doth wonder at him for his wantonness, in making such a match, so his kindred which did hope to have good of him, are deceived by this means: for he will so much respect the trifling tricks of his Cosset, that he will not care to cast off the tried love of his kindred, whom of a long time he hath put in hope of some great promotion by his death (which no doubt by their duty & diligence they have deserved) and at last doth recompense them with this delusion, by his life to give all to his young wife, fie upon flesh that rageth so furiously, & of men that have no more modesty, & of age that yields no better gravity (for the grace of man consists not in proportion, but properties; nor the glory of age in grey hairs, but in gravity. The days have been that men would not have their possessions go out of the name, Ruth 4. 5. but these account more of their filthy pleasure, than their posterity; Moses made a law in Israel, that he that had no issue, should give his inheritance to such as were of his consanguinity, for fail of such, to some of his affinity: Nombr. 27. 8. etc. but these do more regard their greedy lust, than a godly law. We shall read in the old Testament that they might not sell any parcel of their possessions from their Kindred: Ruth▪ 4. Then with what conscience may these give all away from them? Good GOD what a strange thing is this, that those which go holding down their heads as though they would drop into their graves, should be casting up their eyes a doting after girls, when it were more meeter for them to make a covenant with death, than a contract with a damsel: but it seemeth such have lived longer for their years, than their virtues, that neither the decrepitie of their age, nor the imbecility of their bodies, can bridle their concupiscence, but they must further their infirmities by their own follies; the young flesh of Abishah (say they) did foster David in his age, this giveth a great light to their levity, as though David would make his deathbed, a place of beastliness, when the text saith He knew her not. 1. King. 1. 4. and to cover their dotage, they will carry this cloak for an excuse, It is better to marry than burn (as though rotten wood could take fire so fast), It is lawful for them to marry I confess, yet not expedient to match with moathers, the original of such a marriage is grounded upon no goodness; for he taketh her upon a burning unbridled lust, she him upon a lewd desire of living, the sight of such nuptials are ridiculous, for who sees them that in derision will not say, the old horse hath got him a young filly, the success of such a contract is sorrowful: for there is no greater rage than the jealousy of man (saith Solomon) Pro. 6. 34. it is as cruel as death Cant. 8. 6. and who can be more jealous than an old man over his young wife: the end of such a uniting is but evil, for imbecility and debility is a mean to cause his wives inconstancy. Then what reason should move the old man to make such a match, or what maid well disposed will match with such a man, my reason is: It is not sufficient for us to do well, but therewith to avoid the occasion of evil, although she be of an honest conversation, yet the taking of such an old huddle, will give occasion to the world to judge the worst.   

Whether the Father may lawfully disinherit his first borne.  PHilogus. 
Children (no doubt) are a great blessing of God, & happy are those that have them to increase his kingdom. What joy conceived Elizabeth when she found herself to be conceived with child, Luk. 1. 15? for barrenness was a great reproach among the jews. How joyful was Hannah when she had a child? for she was but upbraided afore for her barrenness. 1. Sam. 1. 5. What made the daughter of Jephtha desire two months to go to the mountains to bewail her virginity before she died? was it not her barrenness? for it was counted as a shame in Israel to die without children. judg. 11. 38. The Grecian women accounted their age, from that day they were Brides, and not from the day of their birth; for then (say they) we enter the world, when we have children to take charge of. When Rahel had for a time left childbearing, she was content to suffer her maid Bilhah to bear upon her knees, to cover her unfruitfulness as though it came from her, Gen. 30. 3. for barrenness was counted as a curse, because fruitfulness came of God's blessing, who said, Increase and multiply: barrenness is a sign of disobedience, for the Lord hath promised to those that fear him, There shall none cast their fruit, or be barren. Exod. 23. 26. It is said, the Lord shut up every womb of the house of Abimelech, and why? for a punishment of sin, because of Sarah, Gen 20. 18. The barren woman enjoys not the promise, which God made to them that were married, to have issue, but principally she is deprived of that promise that God made to Abraham, that he would increase his seed. Therefore let no man lightly esteem of children, as many do, which account them rather a charge, than a blessing, a trouble, than a benefit: for, as they be arguments of the love of God, as may appear in Hannah, whose prayer the Lord remembered, 1. Sam. 1. 19 so they be means to increase mutual love between man and wife; for after Leah had borne a son, she was persuaded her husband would love her and keep her company, Gen. 29. 32. 34. Notwithstanding, as godly children are a great gift of God, so the wicked are a great grief to the parents; one a renown, the other a reproach to them. Now many will say, A good tree bringeth forth good fruit, & so condemn the parents, by their children's impiety: but let no man judge rashly, for it falleth out sometime by men, as in other matters: there are few trees that bear fruit, but have some windfalls; few gardens that bring forth flowers, but have some weeds; few men that have issue, but some prove evil. Noah had Cham aswell as Sem, Abraham, Ishmael aswell as Isaac, David Absolom aswell as Solomon: yet Noah, Abraham, & David were the children of God. But I will omit this matter, and manifest my meaning by an example.  
There is one that dwelleth by me, that is very wealthy, who hath but three sons to impart his living to, he hath bestowed great cost upon the eldest to prefer him by learning, yet (presuming of his patrimony, as many rich heirs do in these days) he is either foolish, or unfortunate, for he yields in steed of wisdom, wantonness, for learning lewdness, and for obediency obstinacy; yea, he had better have been put to Cart than to Cambridge, so he might have reaped more profit, and have eased his father's purse: but his other two sons he hath brought up with little cost, & yet they increase his possessions by their pains; now this man at his death doth disinherit his eldest son, that procured his grief, and bequeath it to the two younger that augmented his gain. Now in this case I demand whether he may lawfully disinherit his eldest son, yea or no.  Tych. 
I do not think that the pravity of his demeanour, can bar him of the privilege of his dignity: for the first borne were ever most to be preferred, according as it is written; If a man have two wives, one loved & another hated, & they have borne him children, both the loved & also the hated: if the first borne be the son of the hated, then when the time cometh that he appointeth his sons to be heirs of that which he hath, he may not make the son of the beloved first born, before the son of the hated, which is the first borne, but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first borne, & give him double portion of all that he hath, for he is the first of his strength, & to him belongeth, etc. Deu 21. 15, 16, 17  Phil. 
What dignity hath the first borne above the rest of his brethren, seeing they are all engendered in one womb, & proceed all from one woman, beside that law you repeat was little respected: for Abraham had children of the hated, before the loved, Gen. 18. 4. of his concubines, before his wives, Gen. 22. 24. and yet it is said of him, he gave all his goods to Isaac, whom he had by Sarah his wife. Gen. 25. 5.  Tych. 
If the elder were not to be dignified above his brethren, what moved the Lord to say to Cain, that his brother Abel's desire should be subject to him, and that he should rule over him. Gen. 4. 7? Yea, what caused jaacob to say to Reuben his eldest son, thou art my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power. Gen. 49. 3?  Phil. 
But is it not lawful for a man to give his possessions to whom he please?  Tych. 
Not in all cases: for it is neither natural nor agreeable to God's word, for a man to give his inheritance to a mere stranger, having both children and kindred, as it appeareth in the old Law, where it is written, If a man die & have no son, than ye shall turn his inheritance to his daughter, and if he have no daughter, ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren, & if he have no brethren, ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren, & if his father have no brethren, ye shall give his inheritance unto his next kinsman of his family, and he shall possess it. Numbers. 27. 8. etc. What was Naboths' answer to King Ahab when he demanded to buy his vineyard, The Lord keep me (saith he) from giving the inheritance of my father unto thee. 1. King. 21. 3. it was this that made the King not only to kill him, but (to extinguish all issue of inheritance) his sons likewise 2. King. 9 26. Naomi came out of her Country of Moab, to sell a little parcel of ground at Bethlehem, not because there was not any would buy it, but because she was first to proffer it to her kindred. Ruth. 4. 3. If Naomi might not sell her own to none but such as were of her alliance, much more we ought not to give away our own, from our children and kinsmen.  Phil. 
Indeed, as touching inheritance I hold with you, yet all be not inheritors by descent, but many do purchase by the penny, and gather their goods by their pains, & therefore what reason is there, a man should not dispose of that at his own pleasure?  Tych. 
You say very well, but as there is no cause to constrain any, to give against his will, so there is no conscience to abridge one of that benefit, he should enjoy by right, A man shall do very well to give several portions as he seethe cause, yet he ought to respect the superiority of his eldest son, that he make him not equal with his brethren, but as he is better by priority of birth, so to prefer him by sufficiency of living, which as it is most charitable by the course of nature, so it is best tolerable with the course of scripture: for it is written in the behalf of the first borne, Thou shalt give him double portion of all that thou hast. Deu 21. 17. meaning as much as to two of the others, jehoshaphat King of juda had many children, to whom (the text saith) he gave great gifts of silver and of gold, and of precious things with strong Cities in juda, but the greatest thing of all which was his kingdom, he gave to jehoram: and why? it is there said, because he was the eldest. 2. Chro. 21. 3. so that the prerogative of the elder, is to be preferred above his brethren.  Phil. 
Is a man so bound to exalt his his eldenst son of duty, that he may not prefer others before him, of desert? May not the younger have preferment by benevolence, though the elder hath pre-eminence by birth? I see no cause to the contrary, because I have examples to confirm it. jehoiakim was the eldest son of josiah that good king. 1. Chron. 3. 15. yet jehoahaz his younger brother was preferred to the dignity royal before him, 2. Kin. 23. 30. Esau was the eldest son of Isaac, yet jaacob his younger brother got the blessing before him: so that it is a matter, not of coaction but election to prefer the eldest.  Tych. 
I know not what you may urge by argument, but I am sure your proofs are altogether repugnant, which upon examination of your examples will appear. For jehoahaz although he were preferred to the regal regiment a time before his brother, it was by the choice of the people, and not by consent of his father, yet he was deposed from the place within 3. months, and jehoiakim his eldest brother installed in his stead, according to right. 2. Kin. 23. 30. 34. As for Esau, there were three causes, that might lawfully deprive him of his dignity; one was his own greediness in selling of his birthright to his brother jaacob. Gen. 25. 33. Another was, his brother's dissimulation which he practised with his father to get the blessing from him. Gen 27. 19 The third was, the necessity of God's prophecy to come to pass, that the elder might serve the younger. Gen. 25. 23. So that all these examples do rather prolong the time to no end, than approve your proposition to be true.  Phil. 
Because you both convince me of the time for tediousness, and of my speeches for prolixity, I will cut off many curious terms, and come briefly to the matter, and according to my first motion let me common with you in this manner; Is the eldest most dissolute and inclined to evil, and are the younger more diligent and forward to thrive? hath the father bestowed a great portion of the other to prefer him by learning, and brought up these hardly to take pains for his living? is all his cost cast away upon the other, and have these yet received no profit for their pains? then what reason is there, to tie gold to the girdle of him that is graceless, and leave a brown crust for them to chew that are well given? What wisdom to bestow abundance on him that will waste it, and to leave such to thrive with a penny, that will prosper? Are men so bound to prefer the elder of custom, that they will injure the younger without conscience? No, no, A wiseman will alter custom after discretion, and dispose his wealth according to wisdom, he will not leave his riches to him that is riotous, for he knows full well, that a broken vessel will hold no water, that wealth in his fingers, is like wax against the fire, one will consume with much heating, the other with much handling: he consequently considereth, that the lewd lavishing of his living after his death, will be an argument to others, they were evil gotten by himself in his life, he will therefore make him his heir, not which is first borne, but best inclined, not the eldest, but the excellentest, he will (I say) give most of his goods to such a one, as by his own life, he shall have foresight of his forwardness to live, and not to such a one, as hath no regard to be reform in his life; yea, he will make him the better that is most obedient and dutiful to do him good, this is the course Christians ought to take, and for this they have warrant by the word of God, and thus it may be proved; Goods are the gift of God, and he hath appointed us, not to do as we list with them, like Lords, but to dispose them well, as his Stewards, & therefore we ought to have a great regard of this, to bestow them on such, where he that gave them may be glorified, according to the Apostles teaching, whatsoever ye do (saith he) do all to the praise and glory of God. 1. Cor. 10. 31. If one should give his goods to his eldest Son, that taketh his felicity in venurie, voluptuousness, or such like, I would suppose the gift would be so far from God's glory, that it would rather be a mean to maintain than reclaim him from sin: and shall he not make another his heir, which is more worthy, because he is elder and most wayward? Why? jaacob was a very godly man, and had two sons Reuben & judah, Reuben was his eldest son, yet he gave his kingdom to judah, Gene. 49. 4. What made him dispossess his first borne of his privilege and Kingly honour? Nothing but his improbity; for he was given so much to beastliness, that he did not let to defile his father's bed; and therefore it is lawful for any man, upon such lewd occasions, to take the like course.  Tich. 
If parents should alter their disposition upon every small displeasure, than they may make a Will every week, and yet never a wise one in the end. A wise man, hath reason, to whom he giveth, and therefore is resolute when he giveth, he will be angry, and yet sin not, that is he will not ready in his rage, to diminish his gift for every grudge, but mitigate his wrath with wisdom, he may well put up some displeasures, that hath received many pleasures, if one offence shall make a man froward, the remembrance of many forepast benefits, may purchase his benevolence. I speak this to this end, there is many a good man that hath ungodly children, yea and sometimes they are most evil, that are eldest▪ but yet it were pity they should be deprived of their dignity. josiah did not so much beat down Idolatry, as his eldest son after him did set it up, yet he possessed his father's kingdom. 2. King. 23. 32 jehoshaphat abolished all superstition as his father did afore, but his eldest son after him did erect it, yet he came to his father's kingdom, 1. Chro. 21. 6. and therefore God forbidden the elder son should have injury for every light occasion: for he runneth far that never turneth, and though it be long, it is better late than never.  Phi. 
I perceive a great sound may come from an empty Cask, much pith from a piece of weak elder, and a great flame of a little bundle of briars, but I will leave the censuring of it to yourself: if I should reason with a scholar, I could forbear him, because he is my better, or with one that is ignorant I would suffer him, because he is simple, but the wilful I cannot permit, because they are peevish: your examples (I deny not) are singular, but your application is so single that it would make a man stretch his lips like a piece of leather, to hear such a reason proceed from one that professeth learning. I speak of such as have present experience of their children's impiety, by their life, and you of those that have come to future filthiness after their parent's departure. jaacob in his time saw his sons untowardness, but neither josiah or jehoshaphat did theirs, in their days: then how can these arguments agree, yet to mend the matter you say they run far that never turn, as though that were a reason worthy of record? why is not he that giveth them grace to repent, as able to give them goods to enrich them, either infer that which is effectual to the purpose, or else refer yourself to common sense in judgement, if neither, then let us desist.   

Whether a reasonable allowance may be taken for lending of money.  PHilogus 
Because I will not prolong the time with any impertinent protestation, I will begin briefly with another question: So it is, there is a neighbour of mine that is of great report for riches, who hath converted his possessions into a piece of money, and by reason of his age being not able to labour, he letteth his money to get his living, there resorts of all sorts to borrow of him, to the poor he dareth only for love, to the rich for loan, now my desire is to know whether he may lawfully take Usury of the rich yea or no?  Tich. 
If we despise the drone that liveth by the honey, & the caterpillar that consume the fruit, shall we support him that sucketh the lucre of our labours? neither do I think that Usury may be admitted or excused in regard of our external estates, or any such sinister circumstances, for it is both generally and flatly forbidden, Thou shalt not give to Usury to thy brother, as Usury of money, Usury of meat, Usury of any thing that is put to Usury. Deut. 23. 19  Phi. 
Yet you omit that you should remember, for it followeth further in that place you produce, Unto a stranger thou mayst lend upon Usury, Verse. 20. whereby it appeareth Usury was then permitted, & yet there was some difference to whom it was done.  Tich. 
It was not restrained from strangers, rather for the hardness of their hearts at that time, than because the thing itself was tolerable, but God forbidden we should by that liberty practise it as lawful, for you must note, it might be offered to none but strangers (such as were addicted to Idolatry & enemies to religion) but to their brethren (which were inclined to the true service of God) it might not, therefore amongst us which be Christians (being all brethren by profession) it may not.  Ph. 
You are greatly deceived herein for it appeareth by the year of freedom, that not only one neighbour but one brother, have taken Usury of an other, these are the words: At the term of seven years thou shalt make a freedom, & this is the manner of the freedom, every creditor shall quite the loan of his hand which he hath lent to his neighbour, he shall not ask it again of his neighbour nor of his brother, for the year of the Lords freedom is proclaimed, Deut. 15. 1. 2. So that I can see no cause but that the rich may lawfully pay usury, and so much the rather because that year of privilege was in respect of the poor, but as for the rich creditor he had no ease by that order but might be constrained to pay, for so it appeareth by the words, that which thou hast of thy brother thy hand shall remit, Save when there shall be no poor with thee. Deut. 15. 3. 4. yea, and there be divers places of proof in the scripture whereby one may gather that Usury is prohibited in respect of the poor and not of the rich as appears in Exod. 22. 25. where it is written, If thou lend money to my people, that is to the poor with thee (he saith not to the rich with thee) thou shalt not be as an Usurer unto him, ye shall not oppress him with Usury: and for further confirmation, I refer you to Leuit. 25 37. 38. where the matter in effect dissents not from this. These be the words, If thy brother be impoverished and fallen in deacay with thee, thou shalt relieve him etc. thou shalt take no Usury of him nor vantage, etc. what can be more properly and emphatically spoken in respect of the poor than this without any regard of the rich: for indeed you pretermit two things you ought to expend: the first is the ability of the borrower, the next is, the cause that induceth him to borrow, his ability is sufficient, the cause is superfluous: sufficient, because it rather exceedeth than is equal with the living of the lender: superfluous, because it rather proceedeth of some covetous forecast, for commodity than upon any urgent use of necessity, and therefore what deed of charitte is it to lend such a one as needs not, Luk. 14. 12. or if he borrow, what reason is it the lender should not be partaker of his profit.  Tich. 
Your sayings are very sensual, and be rather means to animate many, than restrain any from evil, wherein you take a confused course to maintain such a monstrous sin as Usury is, for the next way to quench fire is not to power on oil, or to drive away the dropsy to follow drinking, neither is it the best course to abandon Usury by excusing it: if the Apostle would have us to abstain from all appearance of evil, 1. Thes. 5. 22. how horrible is it to become approovers of evil? I perceive that the drift of your long discourse is to no other end but to prove that Usury may be taken of the rich; yet I cannot find it lawful for them to give it, the Prophet Iheremie confessing his integrity amongst the wicked (which did curse him without cause) to clear himself altogether of the blot of Usury saith in these words: I have neither lent on Usury, nor men have lent me on Usury. Iherem. 15. 10. showing thereby that it is a sin aswell to give, as to take interest.  Phi. 
I perceive he that deals with knotty wood must not want an iron wedge, and yet I see no reason why that single protestation of Iheremie which you object, should confound the double confirmation of Moses which I allege: Notwithstanding I confess that same saying of Iheremie is singular, as he placed it, although it be but simple as you apply it; for if you understand it simply by the verbal sense, than you show yourself so simple that you be void of all sense; for I never read of any godly Prophet that did ever let or take money to Usury, neither was it like that he whose calling was so excellent by inspiration, would have his life to savour of such corruption: & what though the Prophet doth by a Simile make a mention of Usury to some intricrate end, doth it follow that the naming of it shall make the thing to be nocent, without exception? Therefore no doubt you are greatly deceived herein, for those words (I have neither lent, or men lent me to Usury) are used of the prophet for two principal ends: The first is by Synecdoche pars pro toto (to set forth the simplicity of his calling) showing that he was as well clear of that, as of all other worldly matters and means which might either be impediments to his profession, or give any occasion of cursing: the next is by a Metaphor drawn from an act of the accidents (to note the perversity of the people) who exclaimed against him as bitterly (and yet without cause) even as the poor do when they are grievously oppressed by the Usurer, which outcries are sometime said to be so pitiful that they pierce the skies. Esa. 5. 9 now because here may rise some ambiguity in this latter assertion, I will prove it sufficiently by reason, for your better resolution, It seemeth by all sense and reason that the original of these outcries should proceed from the poor, first because they of all others have most occasion to borrow, and whether should they repair but to the rich? next, because when they are oppressed (by reason of want) they can not use those remedies the rich may, and it is this that makes them to exclaim against them. Yea to conclude these exclamations can never be construed to come from the rich: for they will sooner crucify than curse the poor, because (as Solomon saith) he maketh his goods his strong City Pro. 10. 15. besides that the same wise man saith in another place, his friends are many. Pro. 14. 20. so what by the help of his riches one way, and the furtherance of his friends another way, he will use his remedy by revengement not by exclamation.  Tich. 
Your discourse is so long that I may justly cut short your logician cavils, with a laconian quib & yet your matter is more tedious to remember, than troublesome to answer, but because I have other proofs apliable for this purpose, I will overpass the I could impugn, & infer that you cannot refel. That famous City of jerusalem being destroyed, the Lord by the mouth of his Prophet showing the cause that provoked him thereto (amongst many other iniquities) noteth this for oee, Thou hast taken usury & increase, & hast defrauded thy neighbour. Ezek. 22. 12. no doubt this saying was set down for 3. causes, 1. to show us that it was a horrible sin, and that in measure amongst the rest it procured part of the punishment; secondly that we might by this example shun it; thirdly that it was not one but many sins that caused the destruction of that City.  Phi. 
I cannot deny but that Usury was much used in that city, yet I can see no cause thereby that should make me to yield to your argument: for the Lord in that place meaneth not the interest that one richman taketh of an other, but the usury that the rich took of the poor by oppression, & that we may perceive apparently in the 5. of Nehemiah, where the rich, had gotten from the poor all their lands, houses vineyards, corn, & what they had into their hands verse 11. Insomuch, as the exclamation of the poor of that City, was very pitiful against the rich, until such time as the same Prophet did make a mitigation thereof: So that the intrusion of your last position is nothing to the purpose; because our talk tendeth only for the taking of interest of the rich.  Tich. 
You still invert my proofs at your own pleasure, but yet I ground not my opinion, upon your persuasion, for I cannot see but that Usury is very contemptible. The Prophet David declaring who should dwell in the Tabernacle of God, he nameth him to be one in the number that hath not given forth upon Usury. Psal. 15. (this is spoken generally without exception of persons and that is clean opposite to your opinion) so consequently we may gather, that he that doth contrary shallbe excluded according to the allusion of the Prophet Ezekiel, He that hath given forth upon Usury or taken interest shall not live. Ezek. 18. 13.  Phi. 
I perceive your principal proofs consist in your last positions, which I have no doubt to refute as well as the rest. The Evangelist Luke recordeth a saying that should be used by our Saviour Christ, which is this: It is a blessed thing to give rather than to receive. Act. 20. 25. Now if you should demand how I could prove these words by any other part of the Scripture, my answer should be, I know not (for the like literal form, is not to be found) but if you should ask, why I believe those bare words to be true? then I would answer, the effect of them may be gathered (though not orderly, yet sufficiently) by the words of our Saviour Christ in many other places in the scriptures. Even so, touching your authorities & places you produce, I persuade myself they are altogether pronounced against such as oppress the poor: if you should ask me how I could prove it? I might answer, I know not: for there is no one special place of proof for it. But if you should demand, what reason should enforce me to say so? then I would make this answer, If you confer all places of the Scripture together, tending or pertaining to this purpose concerning Usury, it will appear that every part hath a special respect to this end, to support and profit the poor, and to repress the rich from oppressing them: whereof as I have shown you some examples of it before, so for your further confirmation, I refer you to Esa. 5. 8. Amos. 8. 4. others at your own leisure you may look out.  Tych. 
As no man doubteth, but that the word of God is of sufficiency of itself without circumstance, yet there is reason to make a doubt of your bare surmise without authority, seeing we all know it is a course wool will take no colour, & a bare matter that will bear no argument. Solomon that wise man, doth note the sin of Usury by this sentence, He that increaseth his riches by usury and interest, gathereth them for him that will be merciful to the poor. Prou. 28. 8. the Lord will not only abridge his days (for the wicked shallbe soon cut off) but also those goods he hath gathered so ungodly together (how hardly soever he had them) shall be taken from him, and left to such a one as shall better bestow them. I pray you, do but consider into what an intolerable extremity the people were brought in the time of Nehemiah by burdens of usury and exactions, insomuch, as if the same Prophet had not speedily sought a remedy, there had followed great confusion upon it. Nehem. 5. And no doubt, if good laws had not been provided to repress it amongst us, it would have caused ere this day, as great calamity in England, as it did then in Iherusalem. So that you may plead what you please every way to excuse Usury, but I see no reason any way to admit it.  Phil. 
He that wants wood, will rather burn turf, than be without a fire; & he that lacks matter, will rather multiply words, than cease from reasoning: who would think you should give over so many good arguments, to rely upon this last allegation of Solomon, when indeed his intent is clean contrary to your interpretation; for he meaneth those that gather their goods by interest of the poor, and not of the rich, yea, and (that which is more malignant) those that spare the rich, & pinch the poor: which may be gathered in another place in his proverbs, He that oppresseth the poor to increase himself, and giveth unto the rich, shall surely come to poverty. Prover. 22. 16. As for that matter of Nehemiah, I marvel you imply it so impertinently, having proved before that it pertaineth to the oppression of the poor: and that may more evidently appear unto you by the Prophets own protestation, who (the better to beat down Usury, and to move the rich to remorse) persuadeth them by his example to be good to the poor: For (saith he) even I and my brethren and my servants do lend them money and corn: I pray you let us leave of this burden. Nehe. 5. 10. As for your last assertion, touching our Laws against Usury, certes they are very well provided: for albeit they restrain the unreasonable loan for lettage, yet they admit some competent allowance for lending: (I mean not of the poor but the rich) otherwise, men may want sometime of a sudden, but they may be bold to borrow at leisure. So that all your objections, be rather needless for prolixity, than necessary for probability.  Tych. 
I remember there is a common saying, that he that is once wet, cares not how deep he wade; so it seemeth, that you having overshot yourself in your sayings, care not how you maintain them by shifts, our S. Christ hath given us a new commandment (not to lend for lone as the jews did in their days) but (saith he) Lend looking for nothing again. Luk. 6. 35. what say you to this?  Phil. 
I say, it were best to intercept you with some other sentence, that might bar the borrower from all the benefit; could you be content to lend a sum of money to your friend at his instance, and take this piece of scripture for payment at your day? I think not. Our S. Christ doth not only will us to lend looking for nothing again, but also in the same chapter, of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again, Luk. 6. 30. yet his meaning is not by these words to maintain wrong; for if we be forbidden to covet our neighbour's goods, much more we may not violently take them away: neither doth he mean by lending looking for nothing again, that a man should lose all when he dareth; for he willeth us to do, even as we would be done to; then what is he will lend to lose all, albeit he could be content to borrow and brook all? Besides, to detain a man's duty, it is a great argument of impiety, and that may appear by the Prophet David's saying; For (saith he) the wicked borroweth, & payeth not again, Psal. 37. 21. Therefore you must not construe the Scriptures by the literal but the mystical sense, as having regard to the time when, & to the end wherefore it is spoken: and consequently you may perceive that all your positions, are discrepant from your opinion. Now having attended & answered all your objections with patience: you have reason to hear a little what I can allege for proof: for indeed, it is the part of a cunning Chirurgeon, not only to purge the wound from corruption, but to apply a plaster to cure it. But to the matter; The new Testament may be a testimony with me: for all other particular sins (as covetousness, extortion, and such like) are expressed & set down, but as for usury there is no mention made of it, saving in one place, where it appeareth by the words of our Saviour Christ, that usury is rather admitted than adempted, (when he reproved the slothful servant, that under idle excuses made no profit of his talon) Thou oughtest (saith he) to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming should I have received mine own with vantage. Mat. 25. 27.  Tych. 
If the Surgeon you speak of could no better cure by his art, than you convert me by these arguments, he should rather procure a putrefaction than a purgation; for there is neither sense nor sequel in your assertion: because usury is not expressly named in the new Testament, you will conclude ex consequenti that Usury is no sin. What a paradox is this? is not the affection the cause of the action, the intent, the procurer of the attempt: why then, it is impossible but that usury should be comprehended & condemned with covetousness; for where there is no avaricious desire, men will lend for love without lucre: and seeing covetousness is the root of all evil, it is no marvel, though Usury be a branch of it. Thou oughtest to have put my money to the Exchangers saith our Saviour Christ) ergo (say you) Usury is tolerated. What a parabolical proof is this? are we now to learn the purport of a parable, when indeed it is not to be believed simply but significantly, not according to the circumstance of the matter, but the substance of the sense, and the doctrine, that may be deduced from it, thus your simple handling of your two last propositions, may be wray the looseness of all the rest of your allegations.  Phil. 
I have read that the Tigress milk the more it is salted, the less it is seasoned, that the Cypress three the more it is watered, the more it withereth, so it fareth with you: for my reasons the more forcible the les effectual they be to persuade you, whether I should impute it to your ignorance, or obstinacy, I know not: but no doubt to err, and excuse it is a greater argument of wilfulness than wisdom; you say Usury is included within covetousness, for where there is no greedy desire, men will lend for love only, by this reason, he that letteth his land shallbe restrained of his rent, for if his desire were not covetous, he might aswell take God amercie as money, what a conclusion were this, you would have men, live by the air like the Elephant, when you abridge them of their lawful course to increase. You proceed further and say my proof is parabolical? I confess it, yet it followeth not it should be improbable? The husbandman that soweth the seeede (albeit he referreth the blessing to God) yet he hath great regard of the ground; and shall we that read a parable (although we respect chiefly the end and effect of it) neglect the matter that doth manifest the same? Is it possible that the mystery being serious and singular, that the matter should be light and sinister? Would GOD bewray his heavenly Wisdom, by similitudes without sense, or not worth our observation? I deny it: for his divine providence disposeth allthings to a good purpose. The end of the parable of Dives and Lazarus, is to terrify us from hardening our hearts against the poor, yet there is somewhat else to be observed in the matter of that parable: for I believe that after death every one shall go immediately either to heaven or hell, as there be manifold proves in the scripture, so I have a manifest example of this even of Dives and Lazarus. The like I may say by the other parable, although the efficient end therein was to reprove the slothful servant, because he made no use of God's benefits; yet we may perceive that the matter beside doth not only import but approve that it is better to employ our treasure to some profit by exchange, than to hide it in the earth to no end by excuse; for God's gifts are abused if they be not used. Therefore let us not so lightly esteem of parables, knowing to what end our S. Christ used them, that the people by seeing might see & not perceive, and by hearing might hear & not understand them. Mat. 13. 13. Now, if we shall both hear & see them & yet (by reason of our curious constructions) neither understand or perceive them, shall not those parables, nay that people procure our greater condennation?  Tych. 
Although in worldly matters (for lucre sake) we deal rather subtly than simply, yet in matters of Religion, we must not wrest the word of God to our wills, by cunning without conscience; for that is the divine rule of all human reason. It is an easy matter by folly to make a piece of good timber to serve for burning as for building; as many places of the scripture by cavilling, as soon to bolster as to bridle sin. But what of that? If men (even in matters of no moment) are so circumspect that they will not put that to burn that is meet to build with, how much more ought we (in a cause of conscience) to be careful, we apply not that to support which is meet to suppress sin? If all I have said will not serve to satisfy you, yet in this respect Usury is not to be permitted, because the Apostle Paul teacheth us to shun things of evil report. Therefore, seeing there is nothing more odious and opprobrious amongst us than Usury (to avoid the very occasion of evil) it must not be practised but expelled.  Phil. 
Either you delight to urge argument to no end, or else you are overweened with the sufficiency of your own wit; then I shall sooner beat the truth into your head with a hammer, than remove your determination with reason, for There is more hope of a fool (saith Solomon) than of him that standeth in his own conceit, and yet of both the fool is more to be borne with: for he erreth of ignorance, the other of malice. It seemeth you are put to great penury, by your last position, for thereby we may aswell shun that which of itself is absolutely good, as that which commonly by occasion is evil, and this was the iniquity of jonah, who being willed by the Lord to go preach at Ninive, he went another way, (yet the word of God is excellent and worthy to be preached, & the commandment given him expedient to be performed) what was the cause of his contempt? nothing else but for fear he should be evil spoken of. jonah. 4. 1, 2. etc. Thus he did omit that which was good and meet to be done, for fear of the evil might follow of it. But admit the Apostle persuadeth us to shun such things as be sinister and of evil report: yet those words condemn not usury, as it may be used; for if you note the original of that report, it will appear that it is the extremity of the rich that urge the poor to cry out upon them, and hereof consequently riseth this evil report. Nehe. 5. verse. 6. 9 so that this position is preposterous, for our conference concerneth the rich, and not the poor.  Tich. 
Yet there remaineth one thing that cometh fitly to my remembrance for this purpose, our first father Adam after his creation was put into the garden, to dress and keep it, and after his fall, he was enjoined to get his living, In the sweat of his face: whereby I gather that all Christians ought to live in some good vocation; now the Usurer hath none, therefore for want of a calling he must needs be condemned.  Phi. 
What a simple syllogism is this? the Gentleman that letteth his land, will have a reasonable rent to live by, the merchant that selleth his ware will take a reasonable gain to save by, yea all men that have any dealings will have some devise to get by: and shall he that hath money be only barred of that benefit, as though it were not as tolerable to use the lawful means to profit by money, as in any other matter?  Tich. 
I grant so too, but in Usury nothing is to be taken of covenant but of courtesy.  Phi. 
What a ridiculous reason is this? You will allow all other men to be circumspect in bargaining for their own benefit, but bind him that letteth his money to the benevolence of others; those may work surely for their own profit, this simply at other men's pleasures; when indeed it is no wisdom for a man that lends to tie his liberty at another's election, nor conscience in him that borroweth, to receive a benefit without amends? But I pray let me demand one question of you? We have hitherto contended about Usury, but what call you Usury?  Tich. 
We term that Usury which is taken over and beside the principal that is lent.  Phi. 
If it be Usury to take any thing more than the principal, who is not a Usurer? The Gentlemen will require, the husbandmen will raise, the tradesmen will rate, in selling of their land, corn, & ware a proportional price according to the time of payment: now if Usury be after your definition, these aswell as the Usurer do sin, though they deal not in like sort: for Usury extendeth not only to money, but also to meat, or any thing that is put forth. Deut. 23. 19 What a proper exposition is this, that men may take no allowance to live by without offence. It seemeth you would have them spend all they have first, and then to see what they can gather without a beginning he that doth in this fort provide for his family, is no better than an Infidel by his folly. And therefore it is no marvel, you have used so long a circumstance without sense, seeing you are ignorant of the foundation you defend: for Usury is not the reasonable, but the unreasonable, taking of any overplus above the principal; which the Prophet in respect of the poor calleth a burden, Neh. 5. 7. 10. So according to my former conference I fully conclude, that although Usury is prohibited to be taken of the poor, I see no reason it should be remitted of the rich.   

Whether the Rich or the Poor are to be accounted most blessed.  PHilogus 
I might move a question concerning the state of men, whether the rich or the poor are to be counted most blessed? for riches are the gift of God and therefore I would think him most happy, upon whom, God most abundantly bestoweth his benefits.  Tich. 
If we consider of men by their external estates than it is hard to judge who is most blessed: for in that respect as Solomon saith all things come alike to all, and the same condition is to the just and the wicked. Eccles. 9 1. Lot had abundance of wealth, so had Dives, one was just and saved, the other wicked and damned, Lazarus had less than both, yet his joy was equal with the best: so that your antecedent is doubtful, and your conclusion indirect▪ because poverty aswell as prosperity is God's gift, Pro. 14. 31. and therefore seeing the greatest gift is not goods but grace, the poor being partaker thereof, may be more blessed than the rich.  Phi. 
Yet this is no reason to disannul my argument, for as God giveth goods, so he can give grace, and both those blessings meeting, must needs make that man more blessed than him that hath but the benfite of one, for though gold be good, yet being beautified with pearl it is more precious according as a learned divine said. juncta wirtus fortior.  Tic. 
There is no man will deny but that goods of themselves are singular good, yet most will say, that such are seldom seen that can well use them, besides there be some special reasons, why the poor by all presumptions should be preferred before the rich into heaven; riches make men high minded. Nabucadnez-zers heart was lifted up, and why? (the text saith) because of his riches. Ezeki. 28. 5. Riches makes us forget God: David said he should not be moved, when said he so? it appeareth by his own speech, in his prosperity. Psalm. 30▪ 6. Riches withdraw us from well doing: The ruler was very heavy when he heard he could not possess eternal life, unless he parted from his living: and why? for the Evangelist saith, he was marvelous rich. Luke. 18. 23. Riches makes men bold to do evil, whereas poverty bridleth the poor from many evils. Proverbs 10. 15. To be brief richmen have so many temporal consolations, that they little regard any spiritual considerations: Therefore as he that is empty shall with more ease enter in at a strait gate, than he which beareth a great burden; so the poor (who have none of these impediments) shall with more facility obtain eternal felicity, than the rich (who by reason of their abundance) shall go to heaven as a Camel through a needle's eye.  Phi. 
Your long protestation is more preposterous than pertinent, for as no man doubteth but that prosperity with godly government is good▪ so none can deny but that poverty with the fear of God is commendable. Pro. 15. 16. Yet as you say, such are seldom seen, that can well use wealth, so I may allege such are rare to find that can possess poverty patiently. Riches (say you) make men high minded; and yet the devil hath other devices to draw poor men to pride he hath many engines to work evil with, and can allure men to one sin after many sorts, as wealth may inflate the rich man, so knowledge may puff up the poor man, and sometime he that wants both, is proud in his own conceit: riches makes us forget God (say you), so doth poverty, for this cause the wiseman desired to be kept from it, least he fell to stealing and so forget the name of God. Pro. 30. 9 As the rich man hath many temporal consolations, and the less regardeth any spiritual meditations; so the poor man hath so many temporal miseries, that it makes him often despair of God's mercies. Therefore as there is no difference of danger to escape Scylla, and to rush upon Charybdis, so there is no equality of evil to sin either by excess or by extremity.  Tich. 
It appeareth by many places of the Scripture that the poor are most preferred, and more to be regarded than the rich, for although in this world, the mighty overmaster them, yet in the world to come God hath chosen such to confounded the mighty: 1. Cor. 3. 27. albeit here they are despised and are of no reputation, yet the Apostle saith, God hath chosen them to bring to nought things that are: 1. Cor. 3. 28. Again our Saviour Christ saith Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Lu. 6. 20 now on the contrary he saith to the rich▪ Woe be to you for you have received your consolation. Lu. 6. 24. The Apostle james saith God hath chosen the poor in this life to be heirs of eternal life jacob. 2. 5. but he willeth the richmen to weep and howl for the miseries shall come upon them. jacob. 5. 1.  Phi. 
I marvel you prolong the time with such frivolus positions, as though God had so peculiarly chosen the poor, that he hath utterly excluded the rich, as for those exclamations that are threatened against the rich, it is not against such as use their riches well, but wickedly; and the like I may say, as for those blessings that are used to the poor, it is not meant by such as are poor in estate and have little to live on, but by such as are poor in spirit, and renounce their own righteousness. Esai. 6. 2. for if the poor man doth contemn his cross, he shall be punished aswell as the rich man that abuseth his benefit.  Tich. 
I perceive you and I shall vary in argument: for you draw your speech, by imagination what a richman should be, and I decipher them by contemplation, what they commonly be, if it were possible to find such a one as you set forth, than your proposition could no way be imperfect.  Phi. 
I have read in the scriptures that job was a very rich man, and yet he used his goods very godly as may appear by his protestation made in his extremity concerning his integrity. job. 31. 16. Zacheus was a rich man, yet he used his wealth very well, he gave one half to the poor, and proffered restitution four fold to such as he had offended: infinite are the examples I could recite, but two shall be as good as twenty to resolve you.  Tich. 
What doth the view of the virtuous examples of others avail us▪ seeing we have no practice of their proceed amongst us, you should do well to show where any of these benefactors are.  Phi. 
It is not necessary to note any by name, yet this I can say, there be some that are good to the poor at their doors, a few that will help their friends in distress, otherwise as I do not love to look into the dealings of many, so I can say little of the dispositions of most.  Tich. 
They say that one swallow is no argument of summer, nor the Aethiopians white teeth cannot make his face fair, neither may the forwardness of a few, be a general presumption for all that be rich, It were hard if amongst many blossoms all should prove blasts, or amongst many rich men, all should be misers, but yet if you mark the manner of such as do good, you shall find they either do it grudgingly or glorionsly, and that was the fault of the pharisees, one doth a pleasure and but seldom, and yet he must speak of it very often, he cannot be content to do good before God who can make restitution, but he must have it known to the world, that laugh at his vain ostentation to give, it is good; the deed is charitable to him that hath need, but not acceptable to God, because he sinneth if he doth it not simply: and surely he that braggeth or upbraideth where he hath done good, deserveth no better amends than his own mouth. Other there be that be wealthy, that will hardly part from a penny by their life, but give great promises of much after death, and yet I think if they could carry it with them, they would hardly leave it behind. It is a wonderful thing that such men as almost have no heirs to inherit, no cause to be covetous, no reason to hold fast, should show themselves so wretched to the world, that they will crucify their own carcase for want of cost, and sooner die than depart with aught to do another pleasure. Alas, what possibility of preferment is to be expected of such a person, that will yield no likelihood of liberality by his life? Besides, do they think, one can feed upon fair words, or prosper by bare promises? Why, he may go long barefoot that tarries for deadmen's shoes, and yet when he hath them, they will not be worth the wearing: for I have known such, as have promised golden hills by their life, that have performed but dirty days at their death: It is but a fetch of fraudulency, yea oftentimes the cause of farther inconvenience, to bring one in hope of having a thing, and then to delude him at the last with nothing. These should do well to remember the Wiseman's words, to do good before they die. For it is far better they should send their works afore them, than they should follow after them, & it is a greater work of charity for them to do good by their life freely, than to do it after their death forcibly. Well, to be brief, let this suffice, where there is one that doth good with his goods, there are a hundred that do hurt with them.  Phil. 
If I should make as long a description of the poor, as you have made a vain invection against the rich, you might justly say, I use more words than wit, both because your circumstance of speech, is nothing to the substance of the matter, as also, because if both their cuills were weighed together in an equal balance, although they differ in exterior estate in regard of living, I fear me they would not be inferior in interior deserts in respect of their lives: for as you say of the rich, so amongst the poor for the most part there be many that be lewdly addicted. But because it is a needless discourse to discover them, I will omit that, and to the matter; The good man (saith Solomon) shall give inheritance unto his children's Children. Proverbs. 13. 22. then it seemeth, such as have nothing to give, are ungodly. But the Prophet David doth make it more manifest: for (saith he) I never saw the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread Psa. 37. 25. If we construe this by the contrary, what should I say, is not poverty an argument of impiety?  Tych. 
It is a perilous thing to give any peremptory judgement of the poor, considering what the Psalmograph saith, Blessed are they that judge wisely of such. What though Solomon saith, The good man shall give inheritance, & c? Yet that is no consequent to condemn the poor, that have nothing to part with? For the Scripture saith, God hath chosen such. I am. 2. 5. Besides that, the Prophets, nay the Apostles, yea Christ himself was but poor, & had no worldly possessions to dispose; yet we must not say they were impious: therefore that position was ill put in, and your latter to as little purpose. For though David in his days never saw the righteous beg their bread: yet since, we have seen in the Scripture an example to the contrary, for Lazarus lay begging at the rich man's gate, and yet his soul did rest in Abraham's bosom.  Phil. 
You must consider there are diversity of poverties: David was a King, and yet in regard of a richer, he counted himself but poor; for saith he (to his son Solomon) According to my poverty have I prepared for the house of the Lord. 1. Chr. 22. 14. Now, I speak not in respect of a competent living, for it was that, the Wiseman most desired; neither of him that hath but a little to live on, for with the fear of God, it is better than great treasure and trouble with it. Prou. 15. 16. but of such as cannot support themselves, but by the benevolence of others, as the beggar doth.  Tych. 
Why, hath not God ordained such as instruments to try the hearts of the rich? and shall we so badly account of beggars?  Phil. 
Yet the workman is more worthy than the instrument, if he can use it well: and why? because the Apostle saith, it is a blessed thing to give, rather than receive. Act. 20. 35.  Tych. 
If the poor man be content with his wallet, shall we condemn him for want, seeing we are taught that Godliness is great riches, if a man be content with that he hath. 1. Tim 6. 6.  Phil. 
Yet our Saviour Christ commanded his Apostles, to use neither staff nor wallet. Matth. 10. nor to go from door to door: for as the Wiseman saith, It were better to die than beg. Eccle. 40. 28. It was this that made Paul labour with his own hands, rather than he would be chargeable to any.  Tych. 
The cause of the rich-man's happiness consists party in the poor, as appears by salomon's saying, He that hath mercy on the poor is blessed. Pro. 14. 21. therefore the poor are most to be preferred: for if the cause be adempted, the effect must needs diminish.  Phil. 
This argument is not worth any thing: for though I did admit your antecedent, it would make against yourself, if I should reason with you by way of comparison, in this sort; If he be blessed that bestoweth on the poor, what is he that hath nothing to give them? if the conclusion be made by the contrary, what say you to this? yet between your argument and this, there is neither barrel better herring; as for your consequent, it is vainly intruded: for if the poor can effect the blessedness of the rich, the cause can never fail, considering that our Saviour Christ saith, ye shall have the poor always with you. Mat. 26. 11. Therefore in this you do but resemble the Spaniel, that forsakes the Partridge to bait after birds, when you defend the matter by casting such bolts; it is better to lay the finger on the mouth, than to speak without modesty: but because it is a folly to strive to go over a style when the gap lieth open, I will leave off such terms as I might well return, for the imperfection of your positions, and produce such matter as is meet to apply, for the proof of my proposition. You know the question, I were loath to be much about it, lest you should think I would beg it. I affirm that the Rich man (although it be rare) that disposeth of his goods like a good Steward, is more blessed than the poor that have not any thing to give. All men will grant this, because it hath been proved even by the Apostles speech in my former defence. Act 20. 35. Again, this is another reason; such kind of poverty is to be counted as a cross, and for this cause, the Wiseman desired to be kept from it, Proverb. 30. 9 And this was one of the punishments that fell upon job. Solomon willeth us not to love sleep? and why? least (saith he) thou come unto poverty. Therefore, if it were not a punishment, he would not premonish us to prevent it Proverb. 20. 13. Yea, and in the same Chapter by this he doth add a double punishment to the slothful person: for he telleth him, because he will not work in Winter, he shall beg in Summer, but have nothing. verse. 4. So that I may conclude, the rich man is more blessed than the poor in this respect, because God giveth him the benefit of a double blessing, one in this World with abundance, another (if he use them well) in the world to come more superabundant.   

Whether there be degrees of glory in heaven, or difference of pains in hell.  PHilogus. 
There is a Question much debated upon, but not decided? which although it be not a principle in Religion to be observed, yet it is an argument of ambiguity, not to be overslipped. I have heard, that in heaven all be not equal in excellency, but (as some say) there be degrees of glory even amongst the Angels.  Tych. 
If you can as readily approve by reason as you do show me by report such a matter, than I should be the rather induced to believe such a mystery.  Phil. 
You know the Prophet Daniel saith, The godly shall shine as stars in heaven, Daniel. 12. 3. Now the Apostle Paul saith, that one star differeth from another in glory 1. Cor. 15. 41. Hereof it is they say, the Saints shall do so.  Tychichus 
The Apostle hath such a saying, yet this is nothing pertinent to your proposition, because he speaketh it in another sense. For in that place (speaking of the resurrection) he doth not only reprove the Epicure that preferreth the pleasures of this life, but he proveth by way of comparison, that although our bodies be in some sort glorious upon earth, yet they shall be much more glorious in heaven, and this he describeth by the difference of stars: but that there should be degrees of glory, it can no way be gathered thereby. For that appeareth plainly in the same chapter vers. 48. where the words extend rather to equality, As is the heavenly (saith he) such are they also that are heavenly. Again it is said of our Saviour Christ, that the just shall shine as the Sun, Mat. 13. 43. Now, the light of the Sun exceedeth the light of the stars, yet that were no consequent that the just should so far exceed the godly in glory, for both are but Saints, and neither could have been saved, if their sins had not been covered in Christ jesus: but these similitudes do show us, that although the purity of the godly be obscured in this world by the pravity of the wicked, as the sun and stars be often overcast by reason of the clouds; yet in the world to come, when both are separated by themselves, than the better shall have his perfect appearance, and shine like stars, yea like the Sun (when they are not shadowed) to the great glory of themselves, and the utter grief of the ungodly.  Phillip 
My meaning is not to refel your reasons, but to recite such as I have heard: and amongst others, this they allege, that in the palace of an earthly Prince, there be many several rooms, & in the house of our heavenly King there be many dwelling places, so saith our Saviour Christ john. 14. 2. Now as there is never a room in an earthly Palace, but hath his several Office, and every Office doth somewhat differ in dignity from another, so say they, there be many mansions in heaven, and every one according to the worthiness of his placing, is preferred to the greater glory.  Tych. 
As though he which is the omnipotent Creator would take a pattern by the proceed of his Creatures, when we read that those things which are highly esteemed amongst men are but abomination in his sight. Our Saviour Christ used that speech to his disciples for their consolation because he perceived they were much troubled to think of his departure, as though when he were gone, he would either utterly forget them, or go to such a place, that there should be no space for them to be where he was: therefore our Saviour Christ, to comfort them in these cross cogitations, doth nothing else but by these many dwelling places, amplify and set forth the largeness of his heavenly house to assure them they (as the faithful) should be where he was: for although the gate be very strait to enter, heaven is wide enough for those that shall inherit it. This I take to be the true meaning of our Saviour Christ: for albeit he maketh mention of many mansions, we must not think there be any distinct dwellings in heaven, (much less any degrees of glory) for it is written, the godly shall all meet in one place in God's presence, and minister a like service to his Majesty. Apocalypse cap. 7. ver. 15.  Philogus 
To prove there is difference of glory in Heaven, they proceed further and say; The Apostles shall be more glorious than the rest: because they shall sit upon twelve Thrones, and judge the twelve Tribes of Israel. Matthew. ca 19 vers. 28.  Tychicus 
I remember our Saviour Christ saith in another place to his Disciples, that they shall eat and drink at his Table in his Kingdom, Luke. 22. 30. yet I do not think so. And in the self same place, he saith, They shall all sit on seats, and judge the twelve Tribes of Israel; yet I do not take it so. For those Similitudes and sayings, import nothing else but their assurance to be partakers of his glory. My reason for the first, is this, In heaven is neither eating nor drinking, because we shall read, that there we shall neither hunger nor thirst any more. apocalypse 7. 16. Esay. 49. 10. My reason for the latter is this, The Apostles shall not judge us, because they, we, and all, shall be judged by Christ jesus. Symbolum.  Phi. 
They rest not so but refer themselves to a saying of saint Paul to approve some difference of dignity in the Saints, because he saith that they shall judge the world. 1. Cor. 6. 2.  Tich. 
This assertion is answered by my former, yet for your better resolution I will explain it by a temporal constitution: you know that when a prisoner (being a heinous malefactor) hath his accusation laid open apparently to all that be present (although the chief office of giving sentence belongeth to the judge) yet all the rest that be there may easily judge what punishment that prisoner deserves, even so in this respect the Saints may be said to judge the world when our sins and lives are laid open manifestly in the presence of so many millions of Angels and Saints (albeit it appertaineth properly to Christ to judge us) yet it is an easy matter for them to judge what we are, and in this sense it may very well be said, we shall stand helpless before so many judges as have excelled us in good works; for the sight of such as are innocent is sufficient to judge those that have injuried them, yea, it will strike such a horror into their hearts that their very thoughts (as the Apostle saith) will accuse or excuse them Rom. 2 15. 16. at that day.  Phi 
Yet they leave not here but allege this for a further probation of the matter, they say that as we have on earth Bishops, so there are which differ from them in dignity, which are entitled Archbishops, so in heaven there are Angels of great glory, and yet there are Archangels which are of greater glory.  Tych. 
This conclusion is nothing forcible, because your comparison is fallible, for although many be preferred more than others to higher dignity in this world, yet their inferiors may be equal to them in excellency, (considering how these earthly preferments come to men oftentimes as much for their revenues, as their virtues): now we know with God is no respect of persons, neither doth he regard the promotion of a man by his title, but the purity of his life by his works: and therefore, albeit it pleaseth God (of his good pleasure) to call us by sundry names, as Archangels, Angels, Saints, Citizens, just, Righteous, Children, Heirs, Sons, and such like, it is no consequent any should differ in glory from another; for what greater glory can any have more, than to be like him that is most glorious? 1. john. 3. 2. and to sit upon the Throne with him that shall judge us? Apoc. 3. 21. Yet this is spoken generally to all the faithful.  Phil. 
I have read that some of the Prophets as Esay, was cut in pieces with a saw of wood, jeremy was stoaned to death, Amos thrust into the temples of the head with a great nail: others, as the Apostle saith, were tried by mockings, scourge, etc. Hebr. 11. 36, 37. yea in our times, many have suffered as Martyrs for the testimony of the truth. And shall not these which have endured such extreme torments in this world far above their brethren, possess some greater glory in heaven than they?  Tych. 
If you had said possess some greater joy in heaven, than it might have bred a question: for, if in this world (where all our pleasures are but purgatories) when one that is poor doth attain riches, which are but momentany, if he taketh more joy by remembrance of his misery past, than he that was never pinched with penury, than no doubt, in the world to come (where the least pleasure is unspeakable) it cannot be, but that he, which hath been most afflicted here, shall conceive and receive far more exceeding joy, than he which hath been touched with less tribulation, & yet the joys of heaven, are fitly compared to vessels filled with liquor of all quantities, for every man shall have his full measure there. Again, it pleaseth God to afflict all whom he loveth, & yet he doth it not in like manner and measure to all. For as his gifts and graces are not of like excellency in every one, so his afflictions are not of like equality to all; yet that argueth not any should exceed others in glory in heaven, so they endure that cross with patience, which God doth lay upon them on earth. There be two special reasons, that make much against you in this matter: one is this. All the afflictions a man may suffer cannot save him, because when he hath done his best, he is but an unprofitable servant saith our Saviour Christ. Luk. 1●. 10. Another reason is this, no man may hope to have greater glory than his brother: because they themselves (for all their sufferings) are not worthy the glory of the life to come. Rom. 8. 18. Therefore, let every one rejoice (as Peter persuadeth us) inasmuch as he is counted worthy to be partaker of Christ's sufferings: for, as by faith the thief was saved upon the gallows at the last gasp, even so all men are saved by that means when they have perpetrated as much as is possible. The Similitude of our Saviour Christ is sufficient to satisfy you in this behalf; it is concerning the householder that hired labourers into his vineyard at all hours in the day: he that came early & wrought in the heat of the day, had no greater reward than those which were idle and wrought but an hour▪ seeing the hire is indifferent to all, none shall have glory greater than another.  Phil. 
Yet to prove the matter more apparently, they draw a reason by the contrary, and say, that seeing there is difference of pains in hell amongst the wicked, it must needs follow there must be difference of degrees in heaven amongst the Angels; for there is inequality aswell of good as of evil.  Tych. 
Although your antecedent can never approve your consequent, yet I would be glad to know such places as may prove those difference of pains in hell?  Phil. 
Our Saviour Christ saith, he that knows not his masters will, and yet doth it not, shallbe beaten with some stripes; but he that knoweth it and doth the contrary shallbe beaten with many stripes, this they allege for one. The same our Saviour speaking of the hypocrites in another place, saith, that they shall receive the greater damnation. This saying is inviolable (which they likewise produce. Also our Saviour Christ, (speaking of Chorazin & Bethsaida, he telleth them that it shallbe easier for Tyrus & Sydon than they at the day of judgement, Luke. 10. 13, 14. This is another notable objection of theirs.  Tych. 
I must needs confess that it standeth with great reason, where God most abundantly bestoweth his benefits, there the abuse and ingratitude deserve to be most punished, yet (that there should be degrees of glory in heaven because there are difference of pains in hell) it is against all reason: for the sins which draw us to hell are many, and differ one from another, but the mean whereby we be drawn to heaven, is but one, and indifferent to all: if every sin deserveth death, it should appear, the more grievous sin should have the greater damnation, but seeing no merit can deserve heaven, the means are not many can effect our salvation, but only faith in Christ jesus.  
FINIS.